logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2017.11.14 2016가단4684
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 28,145,00 and the amount of KRW 28,145,00.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant Incorporated Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) are companies engaging in the wholesale and retail business of fishery products.

B. The Defendant Company allowed Defendant A to engage in the transaction of the Plaintiff and fishery products by lending its business registration name to Defendant A.

C. The Plaintiff supplied Defendant A with fishery products equivalent to KRW 81,475,00 in total from February 13, 2016 to April 14, 2016, and issued a tax invoice in the name of the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company paid the Plaintiff KRW 53,330,000 in total out of the price of the said fishery products.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant company

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant company is jointly and severally liable with the defendant A to pay the unpaid amount of goods under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. A person who has allowed another person to engage in business using his name or trade name is jointly and severally liable to pay the third party who has transacted as the owner of the business (Article 24 of the Commercial Act). In light of the following circumstances, the defendant company permitted the defendant A to engage in the transaction between the plaintiff and the fishery products by lending his business registration name to the defendant company, and the person in charge of the defendant company ordered the plaintiff to hold an interview with the plaintiff, and the defendant company paid the price for the goods directly to the plaintiff, it is determined that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant company as the party to the transaction, depending on the business appearance made by the defendant company.

C. Therefore, the Defendant Company: (i) 28,145,00 won for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff (i.e., 81,475,00 won - 53,330,000 won); and (ii) from April 15, 2016, a duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant from April 15, 2016 following the last date of the supply of goods.

arrow