(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.11.15 2017가단11041

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) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.11.15 2017가단11041

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells the joint board and timber with the trade name of D, and Defendant B is a person who registered his business with the trade name of “F” as Nonparty E’s private village students, and Defendant C is a person who runs the construction business with the trade name of “G” as children of Nonparty E.

B. On April 3, 2010 and June 12, 2010, while the Plaintiff engaged in transactions with E, the Plaintiff entered into a timber union supply contract with the Defendant B under the name of the Defendant, and issued a tax invoice with the Plaintiff as the recipient of F on April 9, 2010.

C. Upon E’s request, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on September 30, 2013 with the supply of timber equivalent to KRW 6,415,200, as well as KRW 8,386,40, and KRW 6,415,200 on March 20, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Evidence No. 11-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the goods to Defendant B by requesting the Plaintiff to continue to trade with Nonparty B under the name of Defendant B, but failed to pay the goods of KRW 17,331,035 among them, and that again requested the Plaintiff to supply the goods to Defendant C, thereby supplying the goods worth KRW 14,801,60 in total to Defendant C.

The plaintiff was aware that the defendant C was the actual counterpart, and the defendant C promised to pay the price of goods to the plaintiff, and even if the defendant C was merely a lending of the name to the non-party E, the plaintiff was aware of the defendant C without intention or negligence and thus, the defendant C is obligated to pay the price of goods to the plaintiff as the nominal lender.

B. Defendant C did not have any transaction with the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, while making a transaction with E with bad credit standing, issued a tax invoice under the name of another person, such as Defendant C, etc.

In addition, the defendant C only lent the name to E, and the plaintiff was such.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2014.10.22 2013가단1190

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.03.08 2015가단30633

-서울북부지방법원 2018.07.26 2018나31369

-대구지방법원 2019.12.20 2019가단3773

-서울동부지방법원 2018.05.29 2017가단128320