logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.12.01 2016나11049
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's defense prior to the merits of this case is as to whether the plaintiff is an individual who has completed business registration under the trade name of "B" rather than the plaintiff, or whether "B" is a legal person, and the plaintiff and the defendant are only "B" in the first instance trial, and the plaintiff are also "B" in the appellate trial, and since the plaintiff and the defendant did not submit evidence to confirm it, they shall be stated as claimed by the parties.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s price for the goods against the Defendant is the price for the goods, the instant lawsuit is unlawful since it is a defense that the Plaintiff is not qualified to be the Plaintiff, the instant lawsuit is examined, and thus, the Plaintiff’s standing in the lawsuit for performance lies in the person who asserts that the right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, exists, and whether the right to demand performance exists or not, should be determined through the deliberation on the merits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, Oct. 7, 2005)

2. Judgment on the merits

A. This Court’s explanation concerning this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following sub-paragraph (b). Thus, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(b) 1 up to 4 parallels 3 to 7 parallels shall be done in the following manner:

“The Plaintiff, in the order of B, B, and C, and the Plaintiff’s outstanding claim against the Defendant were successively transferred, and the Defendant approved the assignment of each of the above claims, so the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the money indicated in the claim, which is the price for the goods not paid for B or C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the said assignment of claims.

arrow