(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.06.27 2015가단245132

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) 서울남부지방법원 2017.06.27 2015가단245132

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants engaged in construction business, etc. with the trade name “D”.

Defendant B trading with the Plaintiff as the actual president of the above company, and Defendant C is registered as the representative of the above company.

B. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendants with steel materials equivalent to KRW 246,813,202, and did not receive KRW 40,244,171.

C. Upon the request of the Defendants, the Plaintiff issued several times the bill with Defendant C as the addressee at KRW 410,000,000 in total.

Although the Defendants promised to pay the amount of the bill to the Plaintiff before maturity, they did not pay KRW 113,00,000 out of the said amount to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 153,244,171 (=40,244,171 Won 113,00,000) and delay damages.

2. In full view of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, the facts that Defendant C was registered as the business entity of “D”, Defendant B’s order of management director of the above business entity, and Defendant C’s order of management director of the above business entity can be acknowledged.

However, as to whether the Defendants were supplied with steel materials from the Plaintiff in the course of operating the said companies together, and whether the Plaintiff was issued a bill upon the request from all the Defendants, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant C is jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the payment of the goods and the payment of the bill, since the defendant C lends his name to the defendant B and caused the plaintiff to mistake as one of the joint president and trade all the defendants as the counter-party to the transaction.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is that all the Defendants are the opposite contractual parties.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.08.17 2015가단23286

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.07.14 2014가단38189

-서울서부지방법원 2017.08.22 2016가단30510

-서울동부지방법원 2015.10.08 2015가단101116

-서울동부지방법원 2017.08.23 2016가합1470