beta
Text
1. The counterclaim Defendant is 3,981,700 won to the counterclaim and 15% per annum from February 14, 2018 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Upon C’s request, the counterclaim supplied agricultural products to D (hereinafter “D”) from December 31, 2015 to May 2016, 2016. From June 2016 to February 4, 2017, the counterclaim Defendant supplied agricultural products to the counterclaim Defendant. The counterclaim Defendant issued a business registration certificate and electronic tax invoice to the counterclaim, and paid the amount of agricultural products once from July 22, 2016 to November 30, 2016.
B. The agricultural product price that the counterclaim Defendant did not pay to the counterclaim is KRW 33,981,700.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts found above, the counterclaim Defendant is obligated to pay 3,981,700 won unpaid agricultural products to the counterclaim and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 14, 2018 to the day of full payment following the delivery of the counterclaim of this case.
B. (1) On the argument of the counterclaim Defendant, the counterclaim Defendant asserts that C is the store head of E operated by D, and that C only lent the name to C at the request of C, and there was no fact of being supplied with agricultural products from the counterclaim, and therefore, it is not liable for the payment of agricultural products.
However, the fact that the counterclaim Defendant issued the business registration certificate and electronic tax invoice to the counterclaim and paid the agricultural product price to the counterclaim is as seen earlier. As such, the counterclaim appears to have supplied agricultural products to the counterclaim Defendant, and the entries of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 alone are insufficient to recognize that the counterclaim Defendant was not a party to the transaction of agricultural products, but only lent the name, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
(2) In addition, even if the counterclaim Defendant leased only the name, the counterclaim Defendant was permitted to run his business using his trade name, and thus, he is liable to pay the agricultural products supplied by the counterclaim as the nominal lender.