logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2019.01.08 2017가단12620
매매대금등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

Around August 2016, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with C on behalf of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and accordingly supplied the funeral services worth KRW 233,850,000 in total on seven occasions from August 13, 2016 to September 10, 2016 to the “E” restaurant located in Pyeongtaek-si D.

Since C paid only 129,625,000 won out of the above purchase price to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 104,225,00 (=23,850,000 - 129,625,000) to the Plaintiff. If C did not have a legitimate right of representation, the Defendant allowed C to run a business using the trade name “E”, and the Plaintiff supplied the term by mistake as the owner of the restaurant of “E” under the Commercial Act, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 104,225,00 to the Plaintiff as the nominal owner under the Commercial Act.

Judgment

According to Article 48 of the Commercial Act as to whether C has entered into a contract on behalf of the defendant lawfully, the act is effective as against the principal, but in order for C to be subject to the above provisions of the Commercial Act, it is not sufficient to recognize that C has granted the power of representation as to the conclusion of the contract of this case to C solely on the basis of the following: (a) each description or image of evidence A 2 through 6 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) testimony of witness F; and (c) inquiry into the head of the full-time administration of this court on behalf of the defendant; and (d) there is no other evidence to prove that C has entered into the contract of this case on behalf of the defendant legally.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise.

According to Article 24 of the Commercial Code, the name of another person shall be his/her own name.

arrow