(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.12.17 2014나311 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2014.12.17 2014나311

물품대금

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. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Nos. 1 through 4, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from Oct. 19, 2012 to Feb. 8, 2013 to Oct. 16, 842,261 of the price for the goods that the Plaintiff had not received from B, and the price for the goods that the Plaintiff had not received from B can be recognized as constituting a cause of 16,842,261. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 16,842,261 per annum from Jul. 10, 2013 to the date of complete payment, which is

2. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant's actual business owner in B is not obligated to pay the plaintiff the price of the goods in B, since the plaintiff was grossly negligent because he was aware of the fact that the plaintiff was the actual business owner in B, and at least he was unaware of the fact that C was the actual business owner in B.

However, the liability of the nominal name lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal name as the business owner. As such, if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the nominal name, the other party to the transaction, and as to whether the other party to the transaction knew, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the nominal name, the burden of proof

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330 Decided January 24, 2008). However, the Plaintiff provided the goods with the knowledge of the name lending of the Defendant, solely based on the following: (a) the description of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; (b) the testimony of the witness D; (c) the result of the order issued by the court of the trial to submit financial transaction information to the Korean bank at the trial; and (d) the result of the order issued

It is insufficient to recognize that there was gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, or of the Plaintiff, as the employer, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3...

참조판례

-대법원 2008. 1. 24. 선고 2006다21330 판결

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.05.09 2017나59973

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.24 2018나5200

-수원지방법원 2018.05.16 2017가단22762

-서울동부지방법원 2019.05.07 2018가단143838

-수원지방법원 2015.12.29 2015가단35474