(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.08.08 2017가단8962

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) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.08.08 2017가단8962

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was supplied to the Defendant a sum of KRW 128,265,830, including fibers, from May 26, 2017 to June 17, 2017 (hereinafter “instant goods”). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price for the goods and the delay damages.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff supplied the goods of this case to C, who is not the defendant, is not liable for paying the price of the goods.

2. Determination

A. As to who is a party to a contract in cases where an actor who entered into a related legal doctrine was engaged in a legal act in the name of another person, the intent of the actor and the other party shall be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the same intent if the actor and the other party agree. If the other party fail to agree with the intent of the actor and the other party, then the other party shall be determined in accordance with the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature of the contract, the purpose of the contract, and the process of concluding the contract.

(Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44059 Decided December 12, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da18711 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.) B.

Judgment

In light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, according to the written evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of the Health Unit A (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the instant case, the written request for work submitted by the Plaintiff was prepared in the name of D (which appears to have been input and output of a part of the form in the same text) operated by the Defendant. The “supplyer” of the electronic tax invoice is indicated as D, and the fact that the person receiving the instant goods was registered as the operator of D on April 18, 201 is recognized.

However, each entry of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the witness C's testimony and the whole pleadings.

참조판례

-대법원 2003. 12. 12. 선고 2003다44059 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.08.22 2018나313931

-대구지방법원 2017.06.29 2016나14186

-대구지방법원 2018.08.22 2018나300096

-의정부지방법원 2019.02.13 2018나3930

-서울남부지방법원 2018.12.20 2018가단216647