(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2014.09.04 2013가단32523

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) 대구지방법원서부지원 2014.09.04 2013가단32523

기타(금전)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including the whole number), and the testimony of the witness C as a whole. A.

The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the manufacture and sales business of rice tea, rice tea, fruits, etc. with the trade name of “D,” and the Defendant is a person working as an employee of F engaged in the manufacture and sales business of rice tea, rice tea, fruits, etc. with the trade name of “E”.

B. From April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply jujuice, 10,000 juice and 10,000 ju (including additional tax) to KRW 40,040,000 per gambling (hereinafter “instant contract”). Under the said contract, the Plaintiff receives KRW 2,00,000 as down payment from the Defendant from around April 30, 2010 to the same year.

5. Until March 5, 200, between the Defendant and the Defendant, supply the above juice and juice 6,050 to the company “(ju)” designated by the Defendant.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that although the defendant had concluded the contract of this case with the plaintiff for the purpose of personal gain regardless of F, the defendant, as an employee of F, had the defendant induced the plaintiff as if he had concluded the contract for goods supply with the plaintiff, and caused damage to the plaintiff by manufacturing 3,950 boxes for supply. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 38,040,000 won (10,000 won x 4,004 - 2,000,000 won) for the price of goods that the plaintiff suffered from loss to the plaintiff.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant caused damage to the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, according to Gap evidence No. 5-10, the defendant at the time of entering into the contract of this case is not F but the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.07.24 2015나2011579

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2015.02.02 2014고단86

-서울고등법원 2018.02.01 2017나2006960

-의정부지방법원 2019.11.22 2019나203317

-의정부지방법원 2016.06.30 2015가단29787