logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2016.10.06 2015나14219
물품대금
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 107,473,100 won and each of them.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole as to the entries in Gap evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1.

The plaintiff is manufacturing and selling clothes in the trade name of "D".

B. From December 2, 2012 to August 2013, 2013 (hereinafter “instant transaction period”), the Plaintiff sold the clothes bearing the trademark “G” to the business entity of “E” (hereinafter “instant business entity”) registered as a business operator under Defendant B’s name.

C. Defendant C is the spouse of Defendant B.

2. As to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff Defendants jointly operated the instant goods and received the instant goods worth KRW 481,792,00 in total from the Plaintiff during the instant transaction period. Of them, the Defendants did not receive KRW 110,797,600 from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the instant goods and the damages for delay. (ii) The parties that purchased the instant goods from the Plaintiff are Defendant B, and Defendant C is not a party to the contract regarding the instant goods.

In addition, the outstanding amount is limited to KRW 76,979,100, and the remainder of the product price claimed by the Plaintiff was calculated excessively.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the evidence as revealed earlier by the parties to the instant goods transaction, the Plaintiff is an entity with the trade name “O” (hereinafter “O”) of the first instance court’s witness J, L, and D’s testimony as a whole, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) evidence Nos. 1-2, 12-3, 23, 31, 8-1 through 6 of the evidence Nos. 8-6; and (b) evidence Nos. 8-1 through 6 of the said evidence.

The goods of this case were sold to the Defendant C at the time, and the Defendant C planned to engage in wholesale and retail business of functional clothes functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally functionally, around August 2012.

arrow