(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.02.15 2018나54490

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) 광주지방법원 2019.02.15 2018나54490

매매대금

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence, evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, entry of evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, witness C's testimony, and purport of the whole pleadings);

A. From November 2014, the Plaintiff supplied active terms, etc. to a business establishment with the trade name “D” (hereinafter “instant frequency”) from November 2014, and the price of goods that was not paid by the frequency of the instant frequency is KRW 23,920,000.

B. The representative on the business registration certificate for the frequency of the instant house was E from November 1, 2014 to March 30, 2016, and was the Defendant from March 31, 2016 to September 2, 2016. During the said period, E was a person working on the frequency of the instant house, and the Defendant is C’s leakage, and C used a passbook in the name of the Defendant in relation to the frequency of the instant house.

C. On August 23, 2016, C prepared and delivered a written confirmation of the balance in Chapter II to the Plaintiff, and one of them (Evidence A 2) is that “A promises to pay KRW 23,920,000 to the Plaintiff by December 30, 2016,” and the other one (Evidence A) is that “A promises to pay KRW 23,920,000 to the Plaintiff by December 30, 2016,” after indicating the name and address of the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is a party to a transaction, who purchased goods from the plaintiff and operated the collection of this case together with C, asserts that the defendant should pay the price for the goods jointly with C as the party who purchased the goods from the plaintiff.

However, just because the name of the representative on the business registration certificate for the frequency of this case was the defendant and C used the passbook under the name of the defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant operated the frequency of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant agreed to pay the price of goods is KRW 23,920,000 that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.12.19 2018가단33011

-울산지방법원 2015.05.14 2014가합6851

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2021.04.21 2020가단34547

-전주지방법원군산지원 2014.03.06 2012가단19302

-청주지방법원 2018.06.05 2017가단105807