logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.07 2014가합505524
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant F, G, H, I, J, and K Co., Ltd. are jointly written in the column for “oil” in the attached Table 1.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

Defendant F Co., Ltd. (formerly changed on December 16, 2008: Defendant N Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant F”) is a multi-level seller, and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) is a door-to-door seller.

(hereinafter referred to as “each company of this case”). Defendant G is the representative director of Defendant F and the actual operator of Defendant D, and Defendant H, as executive director in the business administration sector of Defendant F, took overall charge of the management of members, center and branch offices of each company of this case under the direction of Defendant G.

Defendant I served as the president of the “O” (hereinafter “P”), Defendant K as the P adviser and the president of Qu, and Defendant J as the P adviser.

Defendant L is an attorney-at-law who has been delegated by D with tax trials and administrative litigation on the refusal of the value-added tax claim, and Defendant M is an accountant who has filed an application for the rectification of value-added tax with delegation from D on the disposition of rectification of value-added tax, etc., and who has received some of the refund claims from D.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties concluded a door-to-door sales contract with each of the instant companies to visit and sell goods supplied by each of the instant companies to consumers and receive prescribed allowances from the said companies.

A bankrupt trustee E (hereinafter “Plaintiff E”) who is a party to a lawsuit by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is an attorney-at-law in bankruptcy of D in the bankruptcy proceeding of D and appointed as D in the bankruptcy proceeding of D, and the revocation of a fraudulent act and the takeover of the lawsuit seeking restitution from the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

The organization system and compensation franchise of each company of this case have six branches, such as Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Busan, Gwangju, Incheon, Daejeon, Daegu, etc., and operate 62 centers nationwide.

From April 2005, only 57 centers have been operated, and each branch office is responsible for policy delivery, publicity and supervision of the headquarters.

arrow