logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.04.05 2017가단14667
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to KRW 11,550,00 for Plaintiff A and KRW 46,248,000 for Plaintiff B and each of the above.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are merchants engaged in agricultural products wholesale in the Songpa-gu Seoul E market, and Defendant C is a person who runs a supermarket in the name of “Gmat” in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, and Defendant D is a person who registered the business of “H” that reported the location of the location of the facility as “in the Gmat.”

B. On May 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs began to sell credit to Defendant C in a way that the Defendant C’s J Eth Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Ethy Esty Esty Esty Esty Esty Esty Esty Esty Esty Esty Esty Esty Esty Est

C. As from May 10, 2017, Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”), the same year

7. The Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) supplied imported agricultural products of KRW 23,225,00,00, including B, up to 11,550,000, up to 14. The same year is applicable since May 10, 2017.

6. Until 15.15, agricultural products such as Saturdays of KRW 67,44,00 have not been supplied, and until now, 46,248,000 have not been reimbursed.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was to supply the Defendants with the instant administrative tasks, and even if Defendant C and Defendant D were to engage in an independent business, Defendant C allowed Defendant D to use the “Gmaart” under the name of its own business operator and caused the Plaintiffs to be mistaken for the transaction with Defendant C. As such, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant D to pay the unpaid amount to the Plaintiffs according to the name-holder’s liability under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is that Defendant C had Defendant D use approximately 20 Cheongchip Cheongchip in Gart without compensation, and thus, Defendant C is not liable for the unpaid payment.

3. Determination

A. Whether the parties to the transaction are Defendant C (GE) or not A, 2 to 6.

arrow