(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.27 2016나19371

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) 수원지방법원 2017.06.27 2016나19371

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 133,821.

Reasons

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) upon receipt of a petition for bankruptcy filed by A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) on September 9, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “A”), the court appointed the Plaintiff as the trustee in bankruptcy; (b) the Defendant mutually operated a freezing fishery products distributor; (c) the Defendant did not pay KRW 159,835,229 out of the proceeds of freezing fishery products supplied by A before the date the bankruptcy is declared; (d) on February 9, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff; and (e) the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the transfer of the transfer of the claim to the Defendant at that time, either there is no dispute between the parties, or in the evidence No. 1, C, and No. 1 through 3, it may be recognized by taking into account the entire

2. The Plaintiff’s claim as to the Plaintiff’s claim is transferred to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the right holder of the above claim is without merit.

3. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 159,835,229 to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor and delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.

In this regard, the defendant first asserts that 16,831,200 won out of the above outstanding amounts occurred under a separate supply contract with E and A, and therefore, I ambin.

In light of the fact that the witness E was supplied with freezing fishery products with the trade name of the Defendant, and the price in default is KRW 16,831,200, and even though A knew that it was a separate transaction relationship with the Defendant, it is insufficient to reverse the fact that A was liable to pay the above amount to the Defendant solely based on the above testimony, in light of the fact that the tax invoice in the name of the Defendant was issued, externally transacted with the Defendant’s business chain, and even if A knew of the above fact, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff as a third party.

Therefore, the defendant's status.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.10.13 2016가단24808

-부산지방법원 2019.04.12 2018나53474

-수원지방법원 2016.10.25 2016가단24754

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.06.20 2018가단2729

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.01.16 2012고단5505