logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2016.02.18 2015가합501
약정금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendants paid the Defendants the mechanical value and the physical value of D, which are vessels owned by the Defendants, in advance, paid the Defendants advance payment, and thereafter traded in accordance with the agreement. The Defendants received cumulative agreement amounting to KRW 206,911,476 from the Plaintiff until November 19, 2012, but did not supply fishery products thereafter, and did not perform their obligations under the agreement. Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff advance payment amounting to KRW 206,911,476 as the principal agent of the contract to supply fishery products, even if their parents are the principal agent of the contract to supply fishery products, in view of the fact that the Plaintiff paid advance payment to the Defendant from KRW 206,91,476 as the principal agent of the contract to supply fishery products, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for losses incurred from delay from the Plaintiff’s business name to the Plaintiff under the name of Defendant C.

3. In addition, the Defendants permitted their parents to engage in the business using their own name and thus, in a relationship with the outside, the Defendants’ business is the business of the Defendants, whose nominal owner is the Defendants, and their parents expressed their employees and do not appear to have any difference. Since their parents caused damages to the Plaintiff in violation of the obligation to supply fishery products by intention or negligence, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the above advance payment corresponding to the damages.

B. The Plaintiff, not the Defendants, traded with the Defendants’ parents, and was aware of such circumstances. Thus, the Defendants were against the Plaintiff.

arrow