(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.09.12 2017가단14591

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.09.12 2017가단14591

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) from April 2016 to September 2017, the Plaintiff supplied iron plates to B, a manufacturer or retail company of metal structure materials, etc.; and (b) failed to receive KRW 78,462,409 out of the price; and (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 78,462,409 as the business owner of B.

2. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including each number), although the defendant is registered as the business entity of Eul, the actual business entity of Eul, which is the defendant's son, is the business entity of Eul, and Eul, around April 2016, submitted the business registration certificate of Eul (Evidence No. 3) indicated by the defendant to the plaintiff and began to be supplied with the iron plate from the plaintiff, and Eul sent the copy of the defendant's resident registration certificate and the lot number of the defendant's real estate to the plaintiff by facsimile to the plaintiff. In full view of the above circumstances, although the plaintiff was actually a business entity of Eul, the plaintiff seems to have transacted with the defendant as the business owner of Eul.

However, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements Nos. 13 and 14, it is recognized that around June 2015, C obtained the defendant's seal and identification card and forged the defendant's B application for business registration under the name of the defendant after submitting a business registration certificate to the Nam Daegu Tax Office and received the business registration certificate. In light of this, it is difficult to view that the defendant permitted C to use his/her name as the business owner of B, and thus, even if the plaintiff was mistaken for the defendant as the business owner of B, C cannot be held liable as the business owner of B or as the nominal owner of the name under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

참조조문

-상법 제24조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2019.07.02 2019가단50073

-광주지방법원목포지원 2016.04.06 2014가단9586

-서울동부지방법원 2017.12.22 2016가단28553

-창원지방법원 2016.08.10 2015가합2409 (2)

-인천지방법원 2021.04.15 2020가단225373