logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.06.20 2013가단24374
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that, from October 201 to October 11, 2011, the Plaintiff supplied food materials, such as chickens and ducks, to the Defendant, who operated the restaurant in the name of Jungcheon-si in D. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not pay KRW 39,782,00 out of the price of the goods, and that the Defendant loaned the Defendant’s name to operate the restaurant, and that the Plaintiff supplied food materials to E if he was well aware of such circumstances.

According to the statements in Gap's 1 to 4, Gap's 4, 5, and Gap's 8's 8's 1 to 4, the fact that the defendant was registered as a business operator of the above D cafeteria (hereinafter "the above cafeteria") from October 26, 2010 to October 11, 201, the lease contract regarding the above cafeteria was concluded in the name of the defendant, and the price of goods was deposited in the plaintiff's deposit account can be acknowledged.

On the other hand, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect the third party who trades by mistake as the nominal owner. Thus, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in making the nominal name, the other party shall not be liable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da18309, Nov. 12, 1991; 200Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001). In the witness E’s testimony, considering the whole purport of oral argument, the instant restaurant is the actual operator, and the defendant only lent the name of the business operator at the E’s request, and the fact that the plaintiff did not participate in the operation of the instant restaurant, and the plaintiff also concluded a supply contract with E, which is the actual operator of the instant restaurant, and the defendant was well aware that it is merely the nominal name holder, and the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff as a party to the transaction, and therefore, the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff.

arrow