logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.08.17 2015가단21196
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,151,621 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from September 11, 2015 to August 17, 2016.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff supplied the outstanding amount to C on November 30, 201 to June 30, 201, and supplied it to C on June 30, 2014. The outstanding amount is KRW 27,266,776, and from August 31, 2014 to May 31, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied it to the Defendant who is a transferee of business, and the outstanding amount is KRW 7,570,645.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a transferee of business who continues to use the trade name, should give the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 34,837,421.

B. Defendant 1) neither acquires B’s business nor take over the business obligation from C, nor newly establish B by granting personal property. Accordingly, the Defendant is not liable for the outstanding amount. Meanwhile, the Defendant supplied KRW 15,286,645 from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff on December 2015, supplied the total amount of KRW 6,685,800 to the Plaintiff, and offered KRW 7,716,000 to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the outstanding amount is KRW 884,845, but there is any defect as to the goods supplied by the Plaintiff, and thus, there is no outstanding amount. 2)

However, the actual operator of B is D, and the defendant only lent his business registration name, and the plaintiff knew or could have known it.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable to the Defendant who is the nominal name holder.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, including whether the Defendant is a business transferee of B, the location of C’s location is “E 303-1, E 303-1, F’s business registration number,” and the Defendant’s business place is “E 3B303, if interest arises,” and the business registration number is “G”.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 7 as well as witness C and H’s testimony, it is sufficient to recognize that the Defendant acquired B’s business from C, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

D and H retired from the operation of the I around 200.

Since then D. B.

arrow