beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Defendant’s husband C has registered his/her business with the trade name “D” (the date of opening the business: April 1, 2009; the location of the business place: the E, the type of the business in Chungcheongnam-do); and the Plaintiff, who engages in wholesale and retail business of fishery products with the trade name “F in Daejeon-si,” issued a tax invoice to the person who is supplied with the above business registration certificate in D C; and prepared a business ledger with the customer as D, and supplied fishery products. The credit amount that failed to meet the standard of March 2019 is 68,11,000 won.
(A) The first plaintiff filed a lawsuit against both C and the defendant while filing the lawsuit in this case. On the other hand, C filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the court on June 2019). 【The ground for recognition / [the ground for recognition] entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's cause of claim is the cause of the claim in this case, and since the defendant operated D with her husband C as a partnership with her husband C, the defendant is also obligated to pay the price
(3) As such, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice according to the business registration certificate with the name C and managed the customer as D to the customer director as a matter of principle, since the Plaintiff did not assert that it is a mutual takeover of business under Article 42 of the Commercial Act, it shall be deemed that it supplied goods to C, a business operator of D, in principle.
However, if the defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff, operates his husband C and D as a partnership business in accordance with the partnership agreement, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C pursuant to Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act.
However, the defendant did not operate D with her husband C as a partnership business, but merely tried to leave D operated by her husband, and when her husband, G, which is another business entity registered under the name of the defendant, was disputed that the defendant was G in the case of her husband.