logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.11.19 2020가단4417
물품대금 등
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the wholesale business of agricultural products in the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City C market.

From September 11, 2013, the Defendant operated the food sales business of meal service facilities (hereinafter “instant business”) under the trade name “F” in Sungnam-si D or in the same Gu E.

B. On February 1, 2017, the Defendant concluded a contract for transfer and takeover of the instant business to G.

G runs the instant business from February 6, 2017 to the name of “F” by succeeding to the status of a business operator from the Defendant, and the Defendant is serving as a staff member of G.

C. On February 6, 2017, G agreed with the Defendant that the Defendant would pay all credit payments owed by the Defendant for the goods transaction office until February 6, 2017.

The Plaintiff supplied agricultural products for several years to the F operated by the Defendant or G and the amount of goods unpaid as of December 6, 2019 is KRW 37,882,760.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion has a duty to pay 37,682,760 won for the above goods since the plaintiff supplied agricultural products to F operated by the defendant.

In addition, even if G acquired the instant business, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff that it transferred the instant business, so the Defendant is obliged to pay the price of the said goods as the nominal lender, and the amount of the goods as of February 1, 2017, which was prior to the instant transfer of business, reaches KRW 34,667,690, and thus, the Defendant should bear the said amount of goods 34,667,690.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, G runs the instant business with the trade name “F from February 6, 2017,” as seen earlier, whether the instant business was liable for the payment of goods incurred after the instant transfer. After the instant business was transferred, the Plaintiff’s obligation for the payment of goods for agricultural products supplied to F is not the Defendant.

In addition, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant shall G.

arrow