(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.10.20 2015가단239583

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.10.20 2015가단239583

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the claim amounting to KRW 65,573,400, which C owns against the Defendant, to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the above transfer on the same day. The Defendant merely repaid only KRW 1,804,00 on November 16, 2012, but did not reimburse the remainder of KRW 53,769,40.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff owned the above claim for the amount of KRW 53,769,400 against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). However, the Nonparty Company abused its legal personality by establishing the same Defendant Company as the Defendant Company in substance in order to evade the above goods payment obligation.

C. Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the acquisition amount of KRW 53,769,400 and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including each of the above numbers), and the overall purport of the pleadings in the testimony of witness Eul, C transferred 65,573,400 won to the defendant on September 27, 2012, and notified the defendant of the transfer on the same day, and C had a claim for the price of goods in KRW 11,804,00 against the defendant. However, although it is recognized that C had a claim for the price of goods in KRW 11,800 against the defendant, the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that it had an additional claim for the price of goods in KRW 53,769,400 in addition to the claim for the price of goods in KRW 11,804,00,000 against the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. In addition, the above evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was established to avoid the Defendant Company’s debt on the purchase of goods to the Nonparty Company C.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant company has been punished or abused as a corporate body, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.14 2017가단220892

-울산지방법원 2020.01.09 2019나10163

-서울서부지방법원 2016.05.27 2015가단24624

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.12 2014가합544222