beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 57,083,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 15% per annum from February 12, 2019 to May 31, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs the intermediate wholesale business in agricultural products, and the Defendant is the business owner of the Smarket retail store called D stores (hereinafter “instant retail store”), and E is the Defendant’s punishment, who actually operates the instant retail store from 2014 to 2014.
B. On February 2017, the Plaintiff received a request from E to supply agricultural products to the retail store of this case, and supplied the agricultural products to the retail store of this case from around that time to September 2018, and issued a tax invoice to the Defendant, a business owner, who is a business owner,.
C. The price for goods that the Plaintiff had not supplied to the retail store of this case is KRW 57,083,00 as of November 2018.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal owner as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of or was grossly negligent in making the fact of the nominal name, he/she shall not be held liable. In such a case, the nominal lender who asserts exemption from liability bears the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da21330, Jan. 24, 2008). B.
In this case, E, the Defendant’s model, operated the retail store in the name of the Defendant for several years since 2014, and the tax return on the transaction with the Plaintiff was issued in the Defendant for several years, and the Defendant actively proposed to operate the retail store in this case.
In light of the fact that there is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant was taking legal measures against the identity theft, and the relationship between the Defendant and E, the Defendant impliedly allowed the retail store of this case in the name of the Defendant.