(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.01.12 2016가단23603

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 부천지원 2017.01.12 2016가단23603

물품대금등

Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 98,898,761 as well as the interest rate from September 21, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2, the Defendants concluded a partnership agreement on the sales store of the name “A” on April 16, 2014 from the first floor of the building located in Namyang-si, Nam-si, Nam-si, and registered the business under the joint name, and operated A jointly. The Plaintiff supplied medical supplies to A until May 8, 2015, and did not receive KRW 98,898,761 out of the price.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 98,898,761 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 21, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the due date.

As to this, Defendant C asserts that the Defendants did not have any obligation to pay the above goods since the Defendants terminated the partnership agreement by agreement on November 20, 2014, changed the business operator under the name of Defendant B, and Defendant B operated independently.

According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the Defendants agreed to terminate the partnership agreement on November 20, 2014, and recognized the fact that the business operator changed the name of Defendant B under the sole name of Defendant B.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendants are married couple, the Plaintiff is still aware that the Defendants were operating jointly, and the Plaintiff’s statement in the evidence No. 5-1 through No. 14 is difficult to acknowledge that the Defendants informed the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant trade agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, it is difficult to deem that Defendant C was exempted from the liability to pay the above goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원안동지원 2017.05.10 2015가단21349

-대구지방법원서부지원 2013.12.12 2012가단6862

-전주지방법원 2018.10.31 2018가단8127

-대구지방법원경주지원 2016.10.11 2016가단2102

-서울북부지방법원 2016.02.25 2015가단39880