logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.07.15 2014가단33530
매매대금
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff, with the trade name of “C”, discontinued the business of manufacturing ultra-frequency machinery, and the Defendant, under the trade name of “D,” engaged in the business of manufacturing automated machinery and motor vehicle parts, and established E by investing in D’s business on September 29, 201, and the said company acquired human and physical resources of D.

B. On November 12, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant and continued transactions from February 2009 to May 30, 2012, 2012, which was after the establishment of Co., Ltd. E, from the point of time, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with various automobile parts, including automobile parts, such as “the first wave melting confusion.”

【Unsatisfy-based satch-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satch-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-based satisfy-

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. On April 2008, the Plaintiff’s assertion was requested by the Defendant to develop “the first-frequency melting congested” as part of the automobile. After developing the product, the Plaintiff supplied various parts of the automobile including the mixture from February 2, 2009 to May 30, 2012. The Plaintiff was not paid KRW 20,000,000 out of the price, and the Defendant was from May 14, 2012 to the same year.

8. Until December 23, 200, the order was issued five times more and the plaintiff unilaterally cancelled the order after the completion of about 80% process. Accordingly, the damage was inflicted on KRW 18,140,000, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred to the plaintiff.

B. Article 42(1) of the Commercial Act provides that in the event that a transferee continues to use a transferor’s trade name, a transferee is also liable to repay a third party’s claim arising from the transferor’s business, and where a transferee establishes a stock company by investing in the business and continues to use the trade name.

arrow