(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나300291

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나300291

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Even if the evidence submitted to this court by the court of first instance citing the judgment of the court of first instance citing the evidence duly examined, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal as follows, and therefore, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The dismissal of the first instance judgment in the same part is 25,167,600 won, "28,167,600 won" in the third 13th part of the first instance judgment.

The third-party 19 to 23 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

First, as to whether the Defendant actually operated “G”, the fact that the Defendant operated “D” and “E” in the vicinity of “G” does not conflict between the parties. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant acquired “G” from “G” and operated “G” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the name of the representative is not changed after the F took over “G” from “H; (b) the Plaintiff’s suspension of transaction with “G” and “G”; and (c) the Defendant urged the payment of the unpaid amount to F on the premise that the F is the representative of “G”, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, according to whether the Defendant paid the price for the goods unpaid by F to the Plaintiff, the statement in the evidence No. 5, and the testimony by the witness I of the trial party witness I, it can be recognized that the Defendant paid part of the price for the goods unpaid on behalf of J and I who supplied fishery products to “G” on behalf of F who filed an application for personal bankruptcy. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the above recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone provided that the Defendant would pay the price for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나300291

-수원지방법원 2018.11.15 2018나57087

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.02 2019나8916

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.10.12 2015가단8074

-서울북부지방법원 2018.01.17 2017나2623