(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.11.27 2014나9441 | 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) 인천지방법원 2014.11.27 2014나9441

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. Until July 22, 2009, the plaintiff alleged by the parties did not pay part of the price of the goods, since the defendant did not pay part of the price of the goods, although he supplied the goods to the defendant who operates the interior construction business in the name of "E" under the name of "E" (hereinafter "the goods of this case") with D and D until July 2, 2009, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 3,973,500 for the goods unpaid to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant to whom the goods of this case were supplied is a D operating a different interior business with the same trade name as the goods of this case, and the defendant is merely a person employed by D and the defendant does not have any duty to pay the price of the goods of this case.

2. Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 4-2, the defendant registered the business with the trade name of "E", and made the defendant's 103 and 104 as the representative of "E", and made the name cards entered in the defendant's management department. The plaintiff prepared a trade report (Evidence No. 1) for each period in the "E". The above transaction records contain the facts that the current status of supply of the goods of this case is stated in the above transaction records as alleged by the plaintiff, D paid KRW 2 million on July 14, 2009, and KRW 1 million on September 16, 2009 to the plaintiff as the payment for the goods of this case, and at least KRW 3,973,500 on September 16, 2009 as the representative of the business or the defendant received the above goods from the plaintiff's partner.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the defendant operated the interior business in the same trade name from No. 104 to No. 103 of the commercial building of this case, apart from D's operation of the interior business, but the defendant's location is 103 of the commercial building of this case.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.09.07 2017가단19139

-청주지방법원 2020.10.22 2019나11440

-수원지방법원 2016.04.06 2015가단48326

-서울동부지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가단40535

-서울고등법원 2014.12.18 2014나6024