logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.11.16 2017나23141
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs steel sales business.

B engaged in the manufacturing industry, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and upon the request of B, the Defendant was registered as a business operator of “C” jointly with B from May 2015 to November 2015.

B. From July 2015 to March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied steel equivalent to KRW 74,779,441 to “C”, and was paid KRW 55,646,602 from “C”.

C. During the above delivery period, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice by stating the representative of “C” as “one person outside B”, and the representative was also indicated in the transaction statement issued to “C” as “one person outside B”.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 19 (including branch numbers in case of additional number)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides, “A person who has permitted another person to run his/her business using his/her name shall be jointly and severally liable with the third person who trades his/her own name as an owner of the business.” Since the above provision aims to protect the third person who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as an owner, the said third person shall not be held liable if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of, the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da10512, Apr. 13, 2001). Meanwhile, the burden of proving the fact that the other party to the transaction knew of, or

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Jan. 24, 2008). B.

According to the above facts, the defendant is jointly and severally with B, an actual business owner, in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Act, and a copy of the complaint in this case from April 1, 2016, which is the day following the due date for payment, shall be served on the plaintiff.

arrow