beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a cargo transport contract with C Co., Ltd., and transported cargo according to the transport contract between July and August 2015 and the above transport contract.
At the time of concluding the above contract of carriage, C Co. was engaged in a partnership business with D and E.
However, after the closure of the business, C Co., Ltd. was closed, and it was impossible to issue a tax invoice due to the recipient of C Co., Ltd., D is called to issue a tax invoice with the recipient of E Co., Ltd.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant on July 2015 with regard to the amount of carriage, and received the amount of carriage from the Defendant on July 2015.
On August 2015, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the Defendant for the amount of KRW 9.9 million, but the Defendant did not pay it.
Since the Defendant permitted D to use his trade name, the Plaintiff should be held liable to the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act with respect to the transport cost of August 2015.
2. In full view of the judgment of this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire arguments, the plaintiff issued a tax invoice on July 2015 by designating the defendant as the person to whom the freight was supplied on July 1, 2015. On September 11, 2015, the plaintiff issued a tax invoice by designating the defendant as the person to whom the freight was paid on July 2015, and the plaintiff issued the tax invoice on August 2015 as the person to whom the freight was supplied on August 2015, but the defendant failed to pay the freight on August 2015.
However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to issue a tax invoice upon the receipt of the Defendant regarding the cargo transport contract between the Plaintiff and C Company.
Even if such facts alone, it is insufficient to view that the defendant allowed C Co., Ltd. or D to use his trade name to conduct business.
In addition, the plaintiff on November 17, 2016.