(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.05.25 2016가단2476

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) 서울동부지방법원 2016.05.25 2016가단2476

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On November 1, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) transferred KRW 49,511,000 to the Defendant of the non-party company from Korea ELI Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”); and (b) notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above claim upon delegation by the non-party company; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff sought payment of the above amount from the Defendant.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant had been operating KRW B, who dealt with the imposition of the penalty and the sexual surgery from October 5, 201, but the Defendant did not purchase the goods from the non-party company. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any obligation to the non-party company.

The plaintiff cannot accept the plaintiff's claim for the amount of takeover.

2. Determination: (a) evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2 (Transaction Director) are internal documents prepared by the Plaintiff; (b) evidence No. 5 (Peremptory Notice) is merely a notice of August 31, 2015 that the Plaintiff prepared and urged the Defendant to pay the transfer amount; and (c) evidence No. 6 (Electronic Tax Invoice) is merely a tax invoice for claim prepared on December 29, 2011 by the non-party company as the Defendant and the e-mail address as indicated therein is also used by the Defendant; and (d) evidence No. 7 (Transaction Statement) was a transaction statement that the non-party company supplied to the Defendant on December 29, 2011, and C was an employee of the Defendant at the time of the acquisition.

There is no evidence to prove that the non-party company has taken over the relevant goods in the position of the defendant's agent or performance assistant, and Gap evidence No. 8 (the details of outstanding amounts and payment guide) merely provides a notice that the non-party company prepares and sent it to the defendant on November 7, 2012, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party company has a claim against the defendant for the above goods, and there is no other evidence to prove

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.11.08 2017가단13637

-인천지법 1999. 1. 29. 선고 98가합17943 판결：확정

-서울지법 2002. 5. 10. 선고 99가합93059 판결：항소, 조정

-서울서부지방법원 2016.09.23 2016가단200371

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.08.30 2017가단11184