logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.01.12 2015가단14457
물품대금
Text

1. Defendant A shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 46,846,883 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 6, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff supplied sports supplies to Defendant A, who runs the clothing retail business with the trade name of “C”, by April 3, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff supplied the goods as above and issued a tax invoice under the name of Defendant B, which separately operates the clothing retail business upon Defendant A’s request.

C. Although the Plaintiff received the price of goods from the Defendants, the price of goods not paid until April 3, 2015 reaches KRW 46,846,883.

[Ground of recognition] B between the plaintiff and the defendant: Judgment by service (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) and the defendant B: The non-contentious facts, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3

2. According to the facts of recognition of the claim against Defendant A, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 46,846,883 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 6, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant B

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff, the defendant B operated with the defendant Eul and actually settled the price of the goods. Thus, the defendant B is jointly and severally liable with the defendant Eul to pay the price of the remaining goods.

On the other hand, Defendant B asserted that Defendant B did not receive the goods from the Plaintiff, and that Defendant B did not offer the name of the recipient of the goods on the tax invoice, and that Defendant B did not bear any responsibility against the Plaintiff since it was merely the nominal name, and the Plaintiff was also aware of this.

B. Judgment 1) First of all, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B operated Defendant B with Defendant A only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is next to the Defendant.

arrow