logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.07.04 2016나62897
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the sales and wholesale business of plastic raw materials, and the co-defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co., Ltd. of the first instance trial (hereinafter “A”) is a corporation that runs the manufacturing business of general plastic products for industrial use.

Defendant B is the representative director of Defendant B, and Defendant C is a parent of Defendant B and an internal director of A.

B. As of February 2016, the Plaintiff supplied plastic raw materials, etc. to A, the price for the goods that the Plaintiff had not received from A (hereinafter “the price for the instant goods”) remains 160,504,036 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (Evidence Nos. 1 and 2) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B is liable to the Plaintiff as the representative director, and the Defendant C prepared a written collateral security agreement stating “debtor and the person who created the collateral security agreement” with respect to real estate owned by the Plaintiff and delegated the establishment registration to a certified judicial scrivener. As such, the Defendants personally guaranteed or concurrently acquired the instant goods payment obligation with respect to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay the price of the instant goods and damages for delay to the Plaintiff A and each of the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. It is insufficient to recognize that the testimony of the witness E at the trial as to the claim against the defendant B was the sole basis of the testimony of the witness E with respect to the claim against the defendant B, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The judgment on the claim against the defendant C is a mortgage created by setting only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act), which is a large number of unspecified claims arising from a continuous transaction relationship in the future.

arrow