logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.12.12 2014나12025
물품대금
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the defendant Eul was the president of Daegu-gu D E, the plaintiff entered into a medical device supply contract with the defendant Eul and supplied the defendant Eul with medical devices, such as Easter and Anador and Anador-tension (hereinafter "the medical device of this case"), and the defendant Eul jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant Eul's obligation to pay the goods to the plaintiff under the medical device supply contract of this case on July 2, 2013, and the fact that the amount of the goods unpaid to the plaintiff of the defendant Eul due to the above provision of the medical device as of the date of the closing of argument in the trial at the court below is 10,638,50.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,638,550, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 24, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the last delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Prior to Defendant B’s opening business on April 5, 2013, the instant medical device claimed by the Defendants was purchased from investors of the said hospital, F, G, H, and I, which were investors of the said hospital, and was established in the said hospital. Since Defendant B’s opening business thereafter, the said partners entered into a contract with the Defendant B under the name of Defendant B following Defendant B, the Defendants did not have any obligation to pay the instant medical device cost.

B. The ordering person column of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B (Evidence No. 4) refers to the fact that the seal marked as “J HospitalF” before the seal in the name of the Defendant B is affixed, and the “J” refers to the name before the establishment of the “E Council,” and the “F was the president of the J,” and the Plaintiff entered into the instant medical device contract with the F before the establishment of the E Council, and subsequently the registration of the E Council member was changed.

arrow