logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.25 2016나2057695
물품대금
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including a claim that has been reduced or expanded by this court, shall be modified as follows:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells textile products and services incidental thereto. The Defendant is a company established pursuant to Japanese law and mainly carries on the business of importing and selling textile products such as clothing in Korea. 2) The Plaintiff is the representative director of the Plaintiff and D is a person who was the auditor of the Plaintiff and operated the Plaintiff together with C.

G is the representative director of the defendant and H is the husband of G.

B. On September 2010, the original Defendant entered into a production consignment agreement, such as clothes, etc. (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and supplied clothing, etc. to the Defendant by April 201.

C. After the lapse of the relevant case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, D and C had the criminal proceedings against D and C and C, from May 2012, the Defendant purchased the clothing in the Dongdaemun-gu World Trade Organization and sold in Japan from May 2012 to the account of the Korean National Bank in the name of the Plaintiff, and carried out the prompt remittance agency business so that the money for clothes can be paid to the merchants by delivering it to E who is able to assist the Defendant’s work in Korea.

B) Around August 29, 2012, D referred to as “D” by telephone to G, the representative director of the Defendant, “If the money for clothes purchased in the same capital market is remitted to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff, it will be exchanged and paid to E.” However, D, C, even upon receiving the money for clothes, had no intent to deliver it to E, and received the money for clothes transferred by G to the Defendant and received the money for the outstanding claim against the Defendant and used as the repayment of the Defendant’s debt to the Plaintiff, D, and C. D, as above, by deceiving the Defendant and deceiving it from the Defendant on August 29, 2012 (hereinafter “the act of defraudation”).

D) D and C on February 14, 2014.

arrow