beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 268,901,820 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 26, 2015 to April 27, 2017.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is a company that operates the textile product manufacturing business and wholesale and retail business, and that the plaintiff supplied 268,901,820 won to the defendant who operates the textile product wholesale business under the trade name of "B".
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that he is not the party to the transaction, and there is no fact that he was supplied with the fibers by the plaintiff, and merely lent the name of "B" to the non-party C, and therefore there is no obligation to pay the price for the goods.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including numbers), the plaintiff and the defendant prepared a contract document stating that the plaintiff will trade ITY SINGLE SPN plant for six months from July 2015 to December 2015. The plaintiff supplied 268,901,820 won in total to companies, such as D, E, F, etc., in accordance with the dispatch request written in the name of the defendant around August 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the textile transaction in this case").
According to the above facts, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is the business owner in B and is supplied with fibers according to the above transaction contract. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff totaling KRW 268,901,820 and delay damages.
Even as alleged by the Defendant, the instant textile transaction is between the Plaintiff and C, and the Defendant is merely a nominal lender.
Even if Article 24 of the Commercial Code is applicable, the nominal lender cannot be exempted from liability due to the transaction.
Examining the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 1 in addition to the purport of the entire argument, the Defendant permitted C to use the trade name “B” and accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied the fiber yarn to the designated place from May 2015 to August 2015.