(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.11.06 2013나52975

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) 의정부지방법원 2014.11.06 2013나52975

물품대금

Text

1. The part concerning the selected person B in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the above designated person.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the claim against the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the purport of the entire arguments, the Plaintiff, a company that manufactures polybane ingredients, etc., supplied the above polybane ingredients, etc. to C (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) operated by the Defendant (Appointed Party) from March 8, 2012 to May 14, 2012, and the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 4,556,000 out of the price of the above goods. As such, the Defendant (Appointed Party) is liable to pay the Plaintiff 4,556,000 won and the amount of the above goods, as sought by the Plaintiff, at the rate of 20% per annum from July 3, 2013 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff.

As to this, Defendant (Appointed Party) alleged that there was a defect in the goods supplied by the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore, Defendant (Appointed Party)’s above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim against the selector

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the person who is the defendant (appointed party) and participates directly or indirectly in the management of the above C, such as signing in the petition of appeal of this case. Thus, it is responsible as a party to the goods contract of this case, and even if not, the defendant (Appointed party) used the name of the designated party's business registration certificate and the name of the designated party at the time of entering into the contract of the goods of this case with the plaintiff as if the designated party were designated. Thus, the plaintiff is erroneous as the designated party as the party to the contract of this case and concluded the goods contract

B. (1) First, we examine whether the selected person is a party to the instant goods contract, and whether the Plaintiff himself/herself participated in the instant goods contract and operated C in any way.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.05.29 2015가단3039

-대법원 2018.10.12.선고 2018다231871 판결

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.07.10 2018가단108580

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.09 2017가단32372

-광주지방법원 2017.12.19 2017가단509183