logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2016.03.09 2015가단13595
물류비
Text

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 20,900,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 17, 2012 to August 5, 2015.

Reasons

1. Claim against Defendant B

A. A claim for transportation charges of KRW 20,900,000, which was not paid after the Plaintiff entered into a cargo transport contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) by the end of June 2012, and completed the cargo transport by Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant transportation charges”).

(b) Judgment on deemed confession based on recognition (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant C and D

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely an individual company of Defendant C, which has the external form of a legal entity but has become a form of a legal entity, and thus, is liable not only to pay the instant transport fare in accordance with the legal doctrine of denial of legal personality. Defendant C and D promised on July 16, 2012 to pay the instant transport fare to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant Company and the Defendant C, as the relative of the Defendant C. As such, Defendant C and D are jointly and severally liable with the Defendant Company to pay the instant transport fare.

B. Determination 1) If the part of the claim against Defendant C appears to be merely an individual company behind the corporate personality, as a matter of principle, the legal act or fact-finding act at the time when the legal act or fact-finding act at issue is conducted, in light of the legal or the articles of incorporation such as whether the property and the business were mixed to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish between the company and its hinterland, whether the decision-making procedure was not followed, the degree of the company’s capital failure, the scale of business and the number of employees, etc., shall be mitigated to the extent that the company’s name is only the name and the company is not merely the private company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da73400, Jan. 28, 2010).

(b) has been abused by the Corporation.

arrow