(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.13 2015나2019603

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) 서울고등법원 2016.05.13 2015나2019603

물품대금

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff sought payment of the price for the goods stated in the claim on the ground that the defendant is the party to whom the goods were supplied by the plaintiff. However, even if all evidence submitted to the court of first instance and evidence submitted by this court are gathered, it is without merit as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court is justified, and this part of the judgment of the court is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the price for the goods stated in the claim to the plaintiff, who lent the plaintiff's agency name to the co-defendant B of the first instance trial.

According to Article 24 of the Commercial Code, a person who permits another person to run a business using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable with the third person who trades his/her own name or trade name as the owner of the business.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence 1 through 5, Gap evidence 6-1 through 6, Gap evidence 7 through 10, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, Eul evidence 12, and Eul's testimony of the first instance trial, the defendant allowed Eul to use the defendant's name in the actual transaction of the supply of the goods after entering into an agency contract with the plaintiff, and ② Eul was supplied with the goods from the plaintiff by December of the same year after entering into an agency contract with the plaintiff in the name of the defendant around October of 2012 (the price for the goods: Article 5 was paid on the third day of the following month), and the price for the goods unpaid to the plaintiff was 165,258,95, and ③ the plaintiff set up a collateral security right on the real estate with the defendant as the debtor to secure the defendant's claim for the price for the goods at the time of commencement of the supply of the goods, and around October of 2013, recovered KRW 297,525.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant shall be the defendant Eul.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-상법 제24조

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.10.28 2015나704

-서울고등법원 2019.07.17 2018나2058814

-수원지방법원 2017.10.25 2017나1476

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017나2439

-서울고등법원 2017.07.19 2017나8953