beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Upon the ancillary claim added at the trial, the defendant shall be the defendant.
Reasons
1. According to each of the statements stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including a branch number where a branch number exists), the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff supplied a total amount of KRW 36,552,630 to "B" which is a business registered under the name of the defendant from January 24, 2013 to October 28, 2014, and on the other hand, the plaintiff received KRW 21,381,220 as the price for goods from the above business entity.
2. The primary claim is that the Plaintiff, around January 2013, concluded the above goods transaction contract with the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff sought payment of the balance of KRW 15,171,410 (=36,52,630 - 21,381,220) out of the price of the above goods and damages for delay.
However, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant as a party to the above contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim based on such premise is without merit without further examination.
3. According to the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, “B” is the fact that the Plaintiff was registered under the name of the Defendant on April 28, 2006, and KRW 1,149,000 on February 28, 2014, and KRW 8,246,541 on March 31, 2014, and KRW 2,000,000 on June 25, 2014 to the Plaintiff’s national bank account in the name of the Defendant. The Defendant’s husband C used the said trade name in trading with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice on the supply of the goods under the name of the Defendant and did not raise any objection thereto, respectively.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant allowed C to conduct business using his trade name, or allowed C to use it at least, and therefore, the plaintiff can each recognize the fact that the defendant misleads C as the business owner and trades the above goods.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the balance of the price of the goods.