(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.30 2018나82397

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) 수원지방법원 2019.05.30 2018나82397

물품대금

Text

1. The appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The basic facts of the claim (1) The Plaintiff is a business entity running “I”, which is an individual company for the wholesale and retail of construction materials, and the Defendant is a business entity of “E”, which is an individual company running construction business with Nonparty F, the husband of the Plaintiff.

(2) On April 11, 2017, F subcontracted to H, a business operator of “G”, the interior decoration of D building underground (hereinafter “instant construction”) at the cost of KRW 88,00,00 of the construction cost.

The instant corporation, a staff member of H, performed overall control over the site of C.

(3) Upon C’s request, the Plaintiff supplied the interior materials of KRW 33 million at the construction site of this case at the instant construction site on April 2017, and (2) issued a tax invoice for KRW 33 million on June 15, 2017 by having the Defendant supplied.

(4) As the construction of the instant case was completed, the Defendant paid the instant construction cost to H.

(5) At the request of H and C, some of the above facts are without dispute between the parties, or may be recognized by the respective entries, Gap evidence, Eul evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 through 5, video (including, if any, any) and all pleadings, and there is no evidence that interfered with this.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the material price of KRW 3,00,000 and the delay damages for the supply of the materials at the construction site of this case at the request of the defendant C, who is an employee of the defendant. The plaintiff supplied the materials at the construction site of this case and issued the tax invoice to the defendant. Since the party who entered into a contract for the supply of the above materials with the plaintiff

(2) Therefore, according to the above facts and the evidence as seen earlier, C is an employee of H, contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and C is an unmanned under the name of H in the instant construction contract.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.04.07 2016나62269

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.11.02 2018가단58538

-서울북부지방법원 2018.10.25 2018나30151

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.06.28 2016가단74036

-수원지방법원평택지원 2019.04.30 2018가단54680