logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.12.08 2015가단37791
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff sold electrical materials, etc. with the trade name of “C”, and the Plaintiff supplied D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) with electric wires, etc. totaling KRW 58,700,300 from June 2, 2009 to November 20, 2009.

B. The defendant is the representative director of D.

Grounds for recognition: A1 (including various numbers for each number), and the whole purport of the pleading.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that since he supplied the Defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 55 million from June 2009 to January 29, 2010, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above price of KRW 55 million to the Plaintiff.

However, according to the above facts, since the other party who supplied the goods by the plaintiff is not the defendant individual but the defendant is the representative director, the plaintiff cannot seek payment of the above goods to the defendant unless there are special circumstances such as the defendant guaranteed the above goods payment obligation against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the construction of Ftel’s officetel’s construction from D, D (hereinafter “C,”) and the Defendant asserted that, even if the Defendant received the above officetel’s payment from the K, it did not incorporate it into D’s assets but embezzled by the Defendant’s individual, the Defendant is obligated to pay the price of the goods to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s above assertion is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion solely on the evidence No. 17, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s above assertion is acknowledged, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as having the right to claim the price of the goods against the Defendant.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow