(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.11.16 2016가합24165

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) 서울북부지방법원 2017.11.16 2016가합24165

물품대금

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C is 24,269,530 won and 6% per annum from January 24, 2014 to September 9, 2016.

Reasons

1. A company established on May 28, 2003 for the purpose of manufacturing and processing food, processing and selling meat, etc., and for which the Plaintiff constitutes a merchant does not have any dispute between the parties.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff concluded a Korea-China supply contract with the Defendants and continuously supplied Korea-China. However, the Defendants only paid only a part of the Korea-China supply price to the Plaintiff and did not pay the remainder.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount corresponding to the “amount of claim” stated in the separate sheet, and to pay damages for delay from the relevant date indicated in the separate sheet on which the Defendants paid the amount of goods to the Plaintiff.

In particular, Defendant B, along with Defendant C, operated “H” located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Song-gu restaurant”), and Defendant D also operated “I” located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, as well as Defendant C (hereinafter “I”). Accordingly, pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act, the price for goods related to restaurants of Songpa-gu pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act is jointly and severally liable for Defendant B, C, and C to pay the said amount.

B. The price for the goods that Defendant B sought by the Plaintiff to Defendant B is the price for the goods related to Han Korea supplied by Defendant C and D while running a restaurant in Sungnam-si, or the price for the goods related to Han Korea supplied by Defendant C from October 1, 2013 to November 14, 2013, prior to Defendant C’s commencement of the business with Defendant B, to other partners while operating a restaurant in Songpa-gu.

Therefore, we cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim on the premise that there is a price for goods against the defendant B.

C. Defendant G merely lent the name, and there was no fact that he was supplied with Chinese friendship from the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant G cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of goods unpaid.

3. Determination

A. Defendant C.

참조조문

-상법 제57조 제1항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2011.02.15 2010노6315

-수원지방법원 2011. 2. 15. 선고 2010노6315 판결

-광주지방법원목포지원 2015.07.22 2014가단51631

-울산지방법원 2014.07.24 2014고단1302

-서울북부지방법원 2013.09.25 2012노1670