(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.08.18 2016가단15435

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.08.18 2016가단15435

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,561,100 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 6, 2016 to May 11, 2016, and from May 12, 2016.

Reasons

1. On December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 3,036,00 from the Defendant, and on December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied a PHC file amounting to KRW 3,036,00 (including value-added tax) to the site of the new construction of Bara in order to supply the PH file amounting to KRW 3,036,00 (including value-added tax) to the site of the new construction of Bara (hereinafter “A lending construction site”), and on January 3 and 4, 2016, supplied the PHC file amounting to KRW 32,561,10 (including value-added tax) to the site of the new construction of Bara.

[Ground of recognition] 1 to 7 evidence (including paper numbers), witness B, C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the lawsuit in this case where the plaintiff sought a payment of the price for the goods against the defendant, since the party to the goods supply contract is not the defendant but D (hereinafter "D"), the lawsuit in this case seeking a payment of the price for the goods against the defendant is an unlawful lawsuit against the non-qualified person.

However, in a performance suit, a person who was designated as the performance obligor has the standing to be the defendant.

The grounds alleged by the defendant are to be judged as the existence of a claim within the merits, and it is not to be determined as the existence of a party's standing before the merits.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff concluded a file supply contract with the Defendant at the site of the ABD Construction Work, and supplied some advance payment to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the file price to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant did not have concluded a file supply contract with the Plaintiff.

However, upon the request of D, the defendant dispatched the head of C division to the site of ABD to work, and only subrogated the contract deposit of D.

The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to cancel the issuance of the tax invoice, and the Plaintiff also drafted the goods supply contract with D.

Therefore, the debtor of the price of goods is the defendant.

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2015.12.24 2015나2973

-서울동부지방법원 2014.12.05 2013나20344

-광주지방법원 2015.11.03 2014가단52617

-전주지방법원 2018.08.08 2016가단26978

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.31 2017가단32020