beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 9, 201, the Defendant: (a) registered the business under the name of “C” and operated the entertainment tavern (hereinafter “the entertainment tavern in this case”); (b) lent the said store to D and E for a sublease of KRW 20 million and KRW 300,000 per month; and (c) allowed D and E to operate the entertainment tavern using the Defendant’s name at the said store.
B. The Plaintiff, a company running a liquor distribution business, lent a subsidy of KRW 2 million to D and E, which operated the instant entertainment tavern, from February 26, 201 to September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the instant entertainment tavern, and the goods price claim accrued therefrom amounting to KRW 4,114,04.
C. D and E operated the instant entertainment tavern under the name of the Defendant, and received a tax invoice under the Defendant’s name, and used the liquor supply passbook opened in the Defendant’s name F.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination on the cause of the claim, the defendant allowed D and E to use his name to operate his business. Accordingly, the plaintiff misleads the defendant as the business owner, lends the purchase subsidy for alcoholic beverages to D and E, and supplied alcoholic beverages.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money at the rate of 20% per annum from June 27, 2013 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, as requested by the Plaintiff, as the nominal lender, pursuant to the provision of Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that there was gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff regarding the disclosure of name, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion.