logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.11.02 2017가단6268
물품대금 등
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 51,290,079 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 13, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff supplied various kinds of meats to "B" as the representative of the defendant from January 2017 to February 2017 (hereinafter "instant enterprise") and the unpaid price reaches KRW 51,290,079.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 51,290,079 won not paid and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 13, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

2. As to the judgment of the defendant's defense, the defendant asserts that the company of this case is actually operated by C, and the defendant only lent its name, and the plaintiff also knew of such name lending, so that it does not bear any liability for the name lender under the Commercial Act.

The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal titleholder as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the nominal name, liability shall not be borne. In this case, the nominal lender who asserts exemption from liability shall bear the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew of,

In light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the evidence mentioned above and the evidence mentioned in subparagraphs 1 and 2, witness D and E, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is merely a name truster C by the actual operator of the instant business.

(1) the Plaintiff is acting in bad faith or in bad faith on the name of the Plaintiff.

arrow