(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.10 2017나10654

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) 수원지방법원 2018.05.10 2017나10654

물품대금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The basic facts of the claim (1) The plaintiff (mutual name C) who runs wholesale and retail business of paints, etc. is engaged in the transaction of supplying paints to the non-party E (mutual name: D) who manufactures electronic equipment from April 3, 2014, carried out co-marketing business, etc., and (2) before E is changed to the defendant's change in the business of manufacturing electronic equipment on June 15, 2015, manufacturing of self-processed goods: The stock company;

F. On March 30, 2016, the Defendant changed the trade name to “B” of the Company.

A) The establishment of a company and the acquisition of 6,000 shares of 10,000 shares, and then the registration of the company as the representative director (in accordance with the circumstances considered in the front and rear, E appears to have invested its personal business in kind in the Defendant company.

(4) Even after the establishment of the Defendant, the Plaintiff continued to engage in transactions without settlement with E as an individual entrepreneur (E used in mixing the name of the individual after the establishment of the Defendant).

() When receiving goods from the Plaintiff, E did not clearly state to the Plaintiff whether it will receive goods as an individual entrepreneur or receive goods from the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also did not correspond to E. The Plaintiff’s counter-party to the transaction. From July 2015 to October 10 of the same year, the Plaintiff mixed tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff on both sides, and the Plaintiff calculated based on “the recipient” of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff failed to receive KRW 45,843,349, out of the amount of goods supplied to E, from March 2014 to October 2015. The Plaintiff supplied KRW 82,117,200, to the Defendant, did not conflict between the parties, or there is no evidence that interferes with the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a) claims against E (1);

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.01.22 2013가합6778

-서울고등법원 2016.01.28 2015나5219

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.02 2014가합514207

-서울고등법원 2015.01.22 2014나2019903

-수원지방법원 2020.11.18 2020고단5795