The defendant paid KRW 38,380,760 to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from February 20, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

Basic Facts

A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) is a company engaged in the business of processing, selling, and exporting and importing fishery products.

The Defendant, under the trade name of “E”, lent the name of the proprietor to F, a real operator of “E”, who registered the restaurant business.

A, by November 23, 2018, until the Defendant’s name “E” was supplied, by November 23, 2018, with active fishing, such as luminous fishing, farming fishing, and freezing butts, and the attempted amount as of December 20, 2018 is KRW 38,380,760.

On October 10, 2019, while the lawsuit of this case was pending, the Plaintiff was merged with A on October 10, 2019 and succeeded comprehensively to the rights and obligations of the said company, and taken over the lawsuit of this case.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, but the plaintiff's assertion is a person who was supplied with goods from A or lent the name to F, and the defendant must pay the price for the goods to the plaintiff that merged A pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

Judgment

According to the above facts, it can be known that the defendant allowed F to engage in business under his/her name by lending his/her name to F. However, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, A, while managing the related transaction of "E", it can be recognized that A was aware of the defendant as the representative of "E" and the price for goods was received in the name of the defendant. Thus, A, as a member of the defendant, made a transaction by mistake as the business owner of "E".

It is reasonable to view it.

Pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff who merged A with the absorption amount of KRW 38,380,760, out of the amount of money payable to the plaintiff, such as active fish, and losses incurred by delay.

As to this, the defendant was well aware that the defendant was not the lender in his name.

One of the arguments is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's argument only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 to B No. 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant's assertion.