logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.01.17 2017가단2656
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is a business title of “C” that engages in the business of processing and processing flags (flag assembly).

While Defendant D, who was a member of the Defendant, did not return raw materials for the reason that he was provided with raw materials, such as sheds, printed materials, and wooden materials from the Plaintiff, but did not comply with the request, while doing the she was engaged in a enjoying and processing business.

However, the defendant's lending of business name to D constitutes a comprehensive delegation, and even if not, he/she should be held liable for the nominal lender as he/she permitted to do business using his/her name or trade name.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff KRW 3,645,60, printed price of KRW 4,016,430, KRW 200,000,000, and KRW 35,240,400, and KRW 44,902,430,00 as a result of the conclusion of the contract that the Defendant requested to supply the processed goods.

B. Determination 1) In light of the fact that the representative of the Plaintiff 1 appears to have recognized D as the business owner of “C” (written evidence No. 5), and that there is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant was involved in the business of “C,” the Defendant cannot be deemed to have made a comprehensive delegation to D as the actual business owner of “C,” or that the Plaintiff was responsible for the name holder of the Plaintiff who traded the Defendant by mistake as the business owner. In addition, according to the written evidence No. 5 and No. 1, “C” was unable to engage in the enjoying processing work requested by a third party without the approval of “E,” but it is also recognized that D had concluded a enjoying processing contract with the Plaintiff solely based on the above facts, since terms and conditions of the contract, such as the supply price and quantity, have not yet been prescribed.

arrow