2018Na314910 Prices of goods

Fixed00

Ansan-si

NO EO

Sungnam-si

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-su

Daegu District Court Decision 2018Ga Office decided August 16, 2018

100377 decided

April 25, 2019

May 23, 2019

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 13,448,820 won with 6% interest per annum from May 31, 2017 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a)The plaintiff is a person engaged in the business of manufacturing parts with the trade name of ○○ Global, and the defendant has completed the business registration with the trade name of "○○ Global."

B. On January 21, 2017, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice that constitutes 9,480,000 of the supply value on January 21, 2017 with the Defendant (mutual name ○○ Global), and issued an electronic tax invoice that constitutes 11,640,000 of the supply value on February 9, 2017, and issued an electronic tax invoice that constitutes 1,680,000 of the supply value on May 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff supplied goods such as beauty art supplies (hereinafter referred to as "the goods of this case") and did not receive KRW 13,448,820 out of the price of the above goods from the defendant. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay 13,448,820 of the price of the goods payable to the plaintiff and delay damages therefor.

Even if the defendant merely lent the business registration name to Kim, as long as the defendant permits another person to use the trade name of the business registration under his/her own name, the liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is recognized, so the above goods price and damages for delay are liable to be paid.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The '○○ Global', which has been registered as a business operator in the future of the defendant, is an enterprise operating Kim Man legal relations with the plaintiff and the party which entered into a contract for goods supply with the plaintiff, shall be Kim Jong. Since the plaintiff entered into a contract for goods supply with Kim Jong and supplied goods to Kim Man legal relations,

3. Determination

A. Whether the defendant is a party to a goods supply contract

The Defendant’s completion of business registration with the trade name of “○○ Global”, and the fact that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with the supplied person as the Defendant is as seen earlier. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 19 (including the serial number) and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods at his request, namely, ① the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods at his request, and entered into a contract for the supply of the instant goods at oral intervals through negotiations with Kim Wol, and he only made contact with the Defendant during the instant goods in the course of the instant goods transaction, and there was no contact with the Defendant. ③ The Defendant completed business registration with his own request by the Kim Jong-man, but did not have been engaged in business, it is reasonable to deem that the instant goods supply contract is a son, not a Defendant, a party to the instant goods supply contract.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is a party to the goods supply contract of this case is without merit.

B. Whether the Defendant bears the responsibility as the nominal lender

Any person who has permitted another person to run his/her business using his/her name or trade name, shall be jointly and severally liable to the third person who has transacted with him/her as the proprietor of the business (Article 24 of the Commercial Act). The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect the third person who has transacted with the nominal lender as the proprietor of the business. As such, if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of lending the nominal holder, he/she shall not be held liable. As such, whether the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of lending the nominal holder, as mentioned above, bears the burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da10512, Apr. 1

Although the defendant recognized the fact that the defendant allowed Kim Man legal representative to operate his business using his trade name "○○ Global" in his name, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was supplied with the goods of this case by borrowing the name of the defendant's business registration from Kim Man legal representative and the defendant's name. Thus, the plaintiff could sufficiently be seen as having been aware that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the plaintiff was supplied with the goods of this case by borrowing the name of the defendant's business registration from his name, even if he had been unaware of the above fact or gross negligence, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① at the time of the transaction of this case or during the transaction of this case, the plaintiff did not have any contact with the defendant; ② the plaintiff was called "Man legal representative" and called "Mak legal representative," and the plaintiff was given the Kim Man legal representative and the Kakaoooox in relation to the goods transaction of this case, and ③ the plaintiff argued that the name of the account or the defendant was not Kim Man legal representative.

Therefore, the defendant's above defense is justified, and the plaintiff's assertion of the responsibility of the nominal lender is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

The presiding judge-registered bond ferries

Judges Dominch

Judges No. Roon