beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. There is no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition, or the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7 and Eul evidence No. 1 (including, if any, branch numbers):
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of wholesale business of pharmaceutical products.
B. Around December 15, 2011, the Defendant with a medical license established and operated a “C Council member” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and reported the opening of business as of December 30, 201 (business registration D), and the Plaintiff has been engaged in the transaction of supplying medicines, etc. to “C Council member” from January 19, 2012.
C. Since then, the Defendant changed the “C Council member” to “E” and changed its location to “Seoul Gangnam-gu F,” and the Defendant filed a report on the closure of business with the competent tax office on May 30, 2012.
Meanwhile, until May 30, 2012, the price for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff to the “E Council member” remains 2,192,610 won.
E. Even after the end of the transaction, the Plaintiff continued the transaction with the “E” and affixed a name tag stamped “D E” on or around April 1, 2013 (in the case of the above E members, the Plaintiff affixed a name tag stamped “D E” on or around September 7, 2012) and then the transaction was completed, and the Plaintiff supplied the goods to the “E members” at the time of the transaction remains 3,492,930 won.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, who is the founder and operator of the above C Council members and E Council members, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining supply price due to a transaction that occurred during the period until May 30, 2012 when the Defendant discontinued the Plaintiff’s business.
B. Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that the person who actually operated the “E” during the above period was not an operator of the “E” and that he was not an operator of the “E”, and that he/she is liable for the said period except KRW 290,170, which is the supply price under the tax invoice issued on April 30, 2012.