2015Na13537 Prices of goods

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Na410 decided August 13, 2015

March 10, 2016

April 7, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

3. The decision of the court of first instance was amended by the reduction of claims in the trial as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 14, 414, 621 won with 20% interest per annum from February 14, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. Purport of claim

same as the payment of the amount under Paragraph 3 of the Disposition (the plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is operating a gas station in the name of “besst oil station in the permanent residence C”. The Defendant Company: (a) carried on the transportation and installation business of steel structures, etc., and (b) carried on 25 tons of car trucks from D on June 30, 2013, which caused D to operate the gas station.

B. From July 2013 to January 23, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied transit to the instant land transit (hereinafter referred to as “instant oil supply contract”). Of the oil payment, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 14,414,621 (excluding KRW 5,00,00,000 received from D during the instant lawsuit among the total KRW 19,414,621).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Relevant legal principles

In general, a vehicle that enters the company is subject to an external ownership or a right to manage the operation of the vehicle, and even if the owner of the vehicle directly operates and manages it, the owner of the vehicle is merely acting for the owner of the vehicle in ordinary business operations upon delegation of the right to manage the operation of the vehicle by the owner of the vehicle. However, in the course of the oil supply transaction belonging to the ordinary business, the owner of the vehicle shall bear the cost of the oil in special circumstances where it is deemed that there is no intention to act for the owner of the vehicle to act for the owner of the vehicle and the other owner of the vehicle did not intend to act with the company and only the owner of the vehicle who directly received the oil did not intend to act with the company (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da7341, May 27, 1993; 9Da7341, Sept. 198).

10. 27. See, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu319.

B. Determination

D, a branch owner of the instant land in accordance with the above legal principles, barring any special circumstances, concluded the instant oil supply contract on behalf of the Defendant Company, on behalf of the Plaintiff, which falls under the ordinary business, and accordingly received oil from the Plaintiff for a certain period of time.

Therefore, the Defendant Company that is a party to the instant oil supply contract is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 14, 2015 to the day of full payment after the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff, as well as from February 14, 2015 to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the argument of the defendant company

A. The defendant company's assertion

Even if the Defendant Company received from D the instant land entry and the ownership of the instant land is recognized externally, the parties that entered into the instant oil supply contract with the Plaintiff are clear that the land owner is D, and thus, the Defendant Company, the land owner company, has no obligation to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid oil price.

B. Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, defendant company and D shall be June 2013.

30. According to the entry contract, in the case of the purchase price for the instant land vehicles, D, the owner of the instant land, agreed to bear the costs of the purchase price. D, separate from the Defendant Company, on July 9, 2013, after the conclusion of the said land entry contract, registered F with the trade name of ",00 logistics". On July 9, 2013, for the oil supplied by the Plaintiff from July 2013, the name: D, trade name: the person being supplied with D, and the person was issued a tax invoice. The fact that most of the oil prices under the instant oil supply contract are paid to D, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the facts without dispute, the evidence mentioned above, the witness witness D's testimony, and the fact-finding on the racing market, the fact-finding alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a special agreement under which D, the party to the contract of this case, did not intend to act on behalf of the defendant company in the oil supply contract of this case, and the plaintiff, the party to the contract, did not intend to act with the defendant company, and only D, the actual oil price should be borne by the defendant company, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① The entry contract entered into between Defendant Company and D is merely an internal claim relationship, and thus, even if the Plaintiff agreed to bear the oil price for the instant land-building vehicle, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff, a third party. Rather, the ownership and the right to manage the instant land-building vehicle, the registered titleholder, is in the Defendant Company.

② We examine the circumstances in which the Plaintiff supplied oil to the instant land-based vehicles.

Since before D had been transferred, it had been a vehicle that was located in the Defendant company due to the recent number of vehicles. Since that time, D had been supplied with oil to the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the vehicle, D had been aware of this fact while working as a number of employees, and thereafter, D had entered into an entry contract with the Defendant company on June 30, 2013 after being transferred the instant branch of the instant branch of the vehicle from the recent number of employees. D had been supplied with oil from the Plaintiff even before the recent number of the branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the vehicle, and D had been supplied with the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant case even before D had been supplied with the oil from the Plaintiff, D had been requested to transfer the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the vehicle to D or the recent number of the Plaintiff before D had been transferred with the instant branch of the instant branch of the Defendant branch of D.

Since the conclusion of a land entry contract with G, it is also notified to the Plaintiff of such fact, D at the time of the said notification, D’s registration certificate (No. 5, the date of issuance) of the instant land entry vehicle to the Plaintiff at the time of the said notification.

31. Considering the fact that the date of the final inspection appears to have been written by March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff appears to have engaged in on credit transactions with the Defendant Company, which is not the owner of the instant land, while the owner of the instant land is clearly aware of the Defendant G.

(3) The trade name, which is the name of the company registered separately by D, shall be the same as the name of the defendant company, and the domicile of the company shall also be the same as the location of the defendant company H (road name address: racing I) at racing-si.

④ During the period of being supplied with oil by the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company’s trade name was explicitly indicated on the part on which the Plaintiff loaded the instant land-sharing vehicle (defensive witness D’s testimony is difficult to believe).

⑤ There are circumstances in which the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice in the name of D or in the name of F separately registered by D, a local borrower. However, in light of the reality of commercial transactions related to oil products, the Plaintiff is considered to have given convenience upon request by D, etc. in order for D to receive fuel subsidies from the Government or receive the refund of value-added tax.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. However, since the decision of the court of first instance is modified by the reduction of claim in the trial, it is so decided as per Disposition 3.

The presiding judge's permission area

Judges Oo-crimes

Judges Yu Sung-sung