logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.02.12 2014가단202963
폐기물처리대금 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 57,510,00 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 20% from September 2, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff the waste disposal cost of 57,510,000 won for each 25 tons of waste generated from the removal of the "D Company" factory building in Gangnam-si, and the waste disposal contract with the non-party No. 2 (the defendant's father) who represented the defendant around July 19, 2013, and with the waste disposal period of 270,000 won for each dump truck. From August 12, 2013 to September 16, 2013. Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the waste disposal cost of 57,510,000 won and delay damages.

2. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant was in a partnership with the non-party E, and the above company subcontracted the above construction waste disposal work to the plaintiff. However, it is alleged to the purport that it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to seek the full payment of waste disposal cost only for the defendant. Thus, even if the defendant was in a partnership with the non-party E, and even if the above company subcontracted the construction waste disposal work to the plaintiff to the plaintiff, Article 703 of the Civil Act provides that the association has agreed to make a mutual contribution and conduct a joint business. However, if the association bears the debt due to the act that was conducted for all members, it is reasonable to determine the joint and several liability of the union members by applying Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act.

Supreme Court Decision 97Da6919 delivered on March 13, 1998, 195

8. It is see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da18638, Nov. 1, 199. According to the defendant's assertion, the above obligation for construction waste disposal costs is the partnership obligation of the above company and it constitutes a case where it is committed as a commercial activity for all members. Thus, the defendant is jointly and severally with the non-party

arrow