beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 76,736,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from October 31, 2013 to June 19, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is operating the sales business of textile products, and Defendant C has registered the business under Defendant B’s name and operated the sales business of clothing products.
B. On July 20, 2013, the Plaintiff adjusted the balance of the goods price of KRW 95,000,000 between Defendant C and paid in installments, and finally, paid in full until October 30, 2013.
C. However, Defendant C paid only part of the amount settled thereafter, and currently remains the balance of KRW 76,736,00.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 76,736,00 for unpaid goods, and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from October 31, 2013 to June 19, 2017, the delivery date of the complaint of this case, which is the day following the last payment date, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. (2) Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages due to the Plaintiff’s supply of defective goods. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge such assertion.
B. The Plaintiff also seeks that Defendant B pay the price of goods jointly with Defendant C as the nominal lender.
A person who has permitted another person to run his/her business using his/her trade name, is jointly and severally liable for repayment to the other party who trades with him/her as the owner of the business (Article 24 of the Commercial Act). However, the plaintiff has been aware of the defendant C as the other party to the business and is not deemed to have been mistaken for the defendant B as the owner of the business. Therefore, the claim for the liability of the nominal lender
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against B is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is above.