beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. The Plaintiff acquired and operated D from the Plaintiff on January 7, 2014. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,097,578 and damages for delay, as the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 15,097,578 in total the rent and the amount of the goods, even though the Plaintiff leased the pump, etc. from September 18, 2014 to May 21, 2016 and purchased the goods from the Plaintiff.
B. Defendant 1) The Defendant has transacted with D’s business operators. The Plaintiff is merely an employee of D, and the Plaintiff did not take over D’s business from C. 2) Since the parties to the transaction alleged by the Plaintiff are limited companies E (hereinafter “E”), the Defendant, who is merely a director of E, does not bear any obligation arising from the transactional relationship asserted by the Plaintiff.
3) The Defendant’s taking of goods in a D warehouse is subject to an agreement between E and C to adjust that E leases or sells goods to, or sells, E prior to the time the Plaintiff asserts, and that it would bring about the goods at the time it is desired by the Defendant, so there is no obligation to pay the price claimed by the Plaintiff. According to each entry in the judgment of February 1, 2014, the fact that C, registered as a business entity, issued a nominal request for the lease of oil pumps, etc. and the sale of goods, etc. from September 18, 2014 to May 21, 2016, it is recognized that D, which was issued by the Defendant, has brought about the goods such as oil pumps, etc. from D’s warehouse, has no dispute between the parties.
However, solely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 and 4, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff acquired D from C around January 7, 2014, but it is hard to find that the Plaintiff had been doing business without changing the business, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Therefore, the Plaintiff, other than C, cannot be deemed to have a claim for rent and price for goods against E.
Even if the plaintiff acquired D from C, the plaintiff has taken over D.