logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2021.02.17 2020나5962
물품대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff supplied the building materials to the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay the price of the materials.

B. The defendant did not conclude a contract for the supply of building materials with the plaintiff.

The defendant borrowed the name of the defendant representative director C from the plaintiff and received building materials from the plaintiff.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. C requested the Plaintiff to supply construction materials with the Defendant’s employee on December 2, 2017, and accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied prefabricated-type construction materials equivalent to KRW 26,874,727 at the construction site of E warehouse located in the front city as designated by C.

B. On December 22, 2017, C notified the Plaintiff of the Defendant’s business registration number, etc., and the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice equivalent to the above material price to the Defendant.

(c)

Witness

C was aware of the fact that this Court had ‘titled'.

It stated to the effect that it should not be easily seen as a legal sanction.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, part of witness C at the trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier than the party to a material supply contract, C requested the Plaintiff to supply building materials as the Defendant’s employee, and notified the business operator’s registration number, etc. with the Defendant’s permission and issued an electronic tax invoice in the future, the party who entered into the material supply contract is not C but the Defendant.

Even if the Defendant lent the name to C,

Even if the defendant is responsible for paying the above material price as a nominal lender (Article 24 of the Commercial Act), and in light of the witness C's testimony, the plaintiff was aware of the fact of lending the name.

It is also difficult to see it.

B. Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to KRW 26,874,727 of the material price as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 14, 2019 to the date of full payment after the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

arrow