logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.11.25 2015나46512
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The Defendant, who is engaged in the newspaper business under the Plaintiff’s trade name “D”, was supplied with the printed materials “F” (hereinafter “instant printed materials”) from March 2014 through June 2014 by the Plaintiff who is engaged in the printing business under the Plaintiff’s trade name, and did not pay KRW 6 million to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount unpaid.

Even if the Defendant did not conclude the supply contract regarding the instant printed materials with the Plaintiff, the Defendant, who was his/her form of punishment, allowed the Defendant to use the Defendant’s name or trade name to trade printed materials, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the price to the Plaintiff, who entered into the supply contract on the instant printed materials with the Defendant as the business owner.

2. Determination

A. According to the testimony of the witness G of the trial court as to whether the Defendant is a party to the instant contract for the supply of the printed materials, the Defendant registered his/her business in the name of D and operated trade, communications equipment wholesale business, etc. on May 1, 2010 with the location of the Busan-dong H building (hereinafter “H building”) 316, and the Defendant’s assistant participant, who was the Defendant’s punishment, operated the instant trade, communications equipment wholesale business on August 1, 2004 with the trade name of I as the location of the H building 315, and operated the instant publication business on April 17, 2013 with the Plaintiff’s employees, from around 209 to around 315, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s assistant participant directly delivered the printed materials to the Plaintiff or the Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s 1, who was the Plaintiff’s employee, to the extent of delivery of the printed materials to Busan-do 14, 2014.

arrow