(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.09.18 2013가단75858

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) 서울남부지방법원 2014.09.18 2013가단75858

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On June 10, 2013 and June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff asserts that he/she supplied the Defendant with the amount equivalent to KRW 71,521,956 for the cost of goods, and sought payment of the said amount.

However, since it is not sufficient to recognize that the written evidence Nos. 1 through 9 alone was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit without any need to examine any further.

2. The fact that Nonparty C was a person who served as the head of the Defendant’s computer office, and C purchased Not North Korea for personal purposes, despite the purchase of Not North Korea from the Defendant, that the Plaintiff purchased Not North Korea from the Plaintiff at the time of the Defendant’s necessity, and that C was supplied with the amount equivalent to KRW 27 to 71,521,956 from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not pay the above price of the goods, etc., may be acknowledged by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole.

According to the above facts of recognition, C's purchase of Nowon's computer, which was the head of the defendant's computer office, is deemed to fall under the scope of the defendant's execution of affairs, considering external appearance, and C's purchase of Nowon's computer under the defendant's name and did not pay the price to the plaintiff shall constitute a tort.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the price of supplied goods in Nowon-do suffered by the plaintiff as a user of C.

On the other hand, the defendant knew that C's purchase of Nowon-do does not constitute the defendant's act of performing his duties, so the plaintiff's claim is groundless.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 4-3, and Eul evidence 4-3, Eul requested the plaintiff to issue a tax invoice in his/her name while requesting the delivery of Nowon-do, and the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2015.02.06 2013가단238764

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.23 2014고단1929

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2014.01.17 2013고단496

-서울북부지방법원 2019.12.18 2019나34457

-서울고등법원 2019.1.31. 선고 2018나2055198 판결