beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “C”, engaged in the original meat wholesale and retail business.
The defendant was registered as joint business operators of the restaurant "F" located in Daegu Northern-gu, from December 20, 2010 to August 13, 2012, together with the Kenya D.
(The trade name of the restaurant was changed from August 14, 2012 to "G" after the defendant left the joint place of business, which was changed from August 14, 2012; hereinafter referred to as "instant restaurant"). B.
At the request of the above D, the Plaintiff has supplied the restaurant of this case with plants, such as duckss, duckss, etc. from September 6, 2011 to October 3, 2012.
C. As of October 14, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the instant restaurant with meat and the price that was not paid was KRW 10,004,00.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 6, witness D and H each testimony (the testimony of "the amount unpaid to the plaintiff related to the restaurant of this case is equivalent to 10,00,000 won") and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff supplied land, etc. to the restaurant of this case in accordance with the goods supply contract with the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid price of KRW 10,004,000 and damages for delay thereof. 2) Even if the Defendant is not a party to the above goods supply contract, the Defendant was registered as a joint proprietor of the restaurant of this case at the time of supply, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid price and damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff according to the liability of the nominal owner under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
B. Defendant 1) requested the Plaintiff to supply meat, etc. with respect to the instant restaurant, and the parties that concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for the supply of goods are not the Defendant but D. 2) The Defendant lent some of the money on the ground that the Kenya was insufficient funds at the time of the commencement of the instant restaurant business.
At the time the above loan was made.