logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.05.12 2015나4962
물품대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the defendant, on November 18, 2009, agreed to pay to the plaintiff 20,000,000 UN on December 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010, among the price for goods generated from transactions between the defendant and D Co., Ltd. operated by the plaintiff and the defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The defendant asserts that the above debt against the plaintiff is not the debt of Co., Ltd. and the defendant's individual debt.

However, in light of the following facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant as the representative director of the Co., Ltd., and the defendant as the individual who agreed to perform the above obligation to the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

① The debtor column for the upper part of the evidence No. 1 attached to the company “B” is written only as “B,” and the following is written as “stock company C” in the mutual column:

② Only the signature of “B” is affixed to the same text, “C representative director of a stock company,” as the principal agent indicated in the last part of the evidence No. 1, and the official seal of C representative director of a stock company is affixed thereto.

③ The evidence No. 2 states that “A shall be fully repaid KRW 50 million among the damages incurred by Japan C until January 31, 2015,” and that “I shall be punished until January 31, 2015,” and the Defendant signed and stamped it.

hereinafter referred to as "the letter of payment in this case".

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff prepared and delivered the instant payment note to the Plaintiff on January 2014, and that the Plaintiff prepared and delivered it to the Plaintiff on September 2014.

In light of the above legal principles, the defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

arrow