(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.11.25 2014가단22530

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) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.11.25 2014가단22530

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,639,094 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from January 1, 2013 to June 27, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that engages in the business of manufacturing textile products, and the Defendant is a person who engages in the business of brokering textile products with the trade name “B”.

B. Around May 2010, the Plaintiff decided to supply E, a real manager of the Defendant and C Co., Ltd. (former trade name before the change: D; hereinafter “D”), who is the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s subsidiary, by holding the post of post from the post of post of friendly post, which is the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s subsidiary.

(hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”). C.

Since then, according to the agreement with the defendant and D, the plaintiff issued a tax invoice under the name of B operated by the defendant, supplied goods, and received the price from the defendant. The defendant issued a tax invoice with the amount calculated by adding about 3-5% to the price of goods between the plaintiff and D.

The Plaintiff supplied a thing by December 31, 2012, and was not paid KRW 36,639,094 (including KRW 1,801,685) out of the price of the thing supplied by the Plaintiff.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2, 12-1, 2, 13-1, and 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the party to the goods supply contract of this case is the plaintiff and the defendant, while the defendant was supplied goods from the plaintiff in the capacity of the Daegu Director, and was issued only in the name of the defendant (B) upon the plaintiff's request. Thus, the party to the goods supply contract of this case is the plaintiff and D, and the defendant is not obligated to pay the goods to the plaintiff.

B. Prior to the determination, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4 through 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 2, the party who entered into a contract for the supply of the goods of this case between the plaintiff and the plaintiff is deemed to be the defendant.

(1) The defendant shall be on November 1, 2010.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.11.03 2020가단105259

-서울동부지방법원 2018.04.27 2017가합107382

-대구지방법원 2020.10.07 2020나300778

-수원지방법원 2019.04.02 2017나81519

-광주지방법원 2017.11.10 2017나1789