(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.11 2017가단505229

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 2018.10.11 2017가단505229

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15,266,350 to the Plaintiff Company A; and (b) KRW 24,61,120 to the Plaintiff Company B; and (c) respectively, on February 25, 2017.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff Company A supplied 15,266,350 won in total to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request, and the Plaintiff B supplied 27,711,120 won in total to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above land supply price and damages for delay thereof to the plaintiffs. If the defendant does not assume the liability under a contract, the defendant must return the sale price of the land he provided to the plaintiffs as unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion did not conclude a land supply contract with the Defendant, but was engaged in the transaction after concluding a land supply contract with D (hereinafter “D”). However, the Defendant merely supplied the land from the Plaintiffs on the ground that E, the president of D’s refined land, would supply the land in lieu of performing his/her obligations against the Defendant.

Therefore, since the defendant does not bear direct obligations against the plaintiffs, each claim against the defendant against the plaintiffs is without merit.

2. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the parties to the land supply contract alleged by the Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs and the Defendant are the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, even though it is acknowledged that the Defendant lent money to E several times, and the Plaintiff’s land that Plaintiff B claimed to the Customer Director of D, prepared by Plaintiff B had supplied to the Defendant. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiffs as the parties to the land supply contract as the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, in view of Gap’s written evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 9, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 6 (including each serial number), witness F, G’s testimony, and witness E’s testimony.

① At the time when the Defendant was an employee of E, F, who was an employee of the Defendant, ordered the Plaintiffs to supply the meat, and D.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.06.19 2014나40123

-대구지방법원경주지원 2019.02.20 2018가단14079

-부산지방법원 2017.08.10 2016가단302737

-서울남부지방법원 2020.01.14 2019가단246430