logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.10 2015가단66270
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,830,655 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 14, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the following facts are as follows: D, which used the Defendant’s managing director, to process and deliver steel bars equivalent to KRW 16,303,309, and KRW 16,527,346, etc. on April 10, 2013, and the Defendant was not paid the contract price; the Defendant was a company incorporated for the purpose of engineering work, etc., which allowed D to trade goods, etc. under the Defendant’s name using the Defendant’s managing director’s position; and as at the time of transaction on April 10, 2013, E, which was registered as the Defendant’s managing director, on D’s registry, was retired from the Defendant’s representative director on April 30, 2013.

section 23 of this title.

According to the above facts, the defendant, who allowed D to make a transaction using his name, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, who misleads the defendant as the other party to the transaction and supplied the defendant with iron bars, etc. as above, to D, the total sum of 32,830,655 won, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 14, 2016 to the day of complete payment as requested by the plaintiff, as requested by the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant operated the business entity of "F" separately from the defendant, and the plaintiff supplied it to such D by processing the iron bars, etc. as above, and although the defendant allowed D to make a transaction using the defendant's name, the plaintiff was aware of the fact that D used the defendant's name to make a transaction by using the defendant's name, and even if it was not known, the plaintiff was grossly negligent in not knowing such fact. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case against the defendant was rejected.

However, there are several types of evidence Nos. 1 to 8.

arrow