logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.07.15 2014나7100
운송료
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: (a) the “J” in Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is “T”; (b) the “L” in Part 6 is “R”; and (c) the “Witness E” in Part 15 is “Witness E of the court of first instance”; and (d) it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the Plaintiff’s primary assertion, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the unpaid oil payment for each of the instant vehicles and damages for delay thereof. In addition, if the Defendant received oil for each of the instant vehicles from E, not the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid oil payment amount of KRW 124,946,255, and damages for delay.

B. 1) Determination of the parties to the contract is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the parties involved in the contract.

On the other hand, in cases where an actor who enters into a contract did a juristic act in the name of another person, in which case the actor and the other party agree to regard either the actor or the nominal person as the party to the contract, the parties to the contract shall be determined on the basis of the consent of the actor and the other party. If the other party does not coincide with the intent of the actor and the other party, on the basis of the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and circumstance of the contract, a reasonable person shall be determined by

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44059 Decided December 12, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da31990 Decided September 6, 2007, etc.). (B) In light of the above legal principles, this case’s health class and the above basic facts are the same as the above basic facts.

arrow