logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.31 2018가단5232242
물품대금
Text

1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 200,000,000 and 6% per annum from May 1, 2018 to November 29, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a Chinese corporation that exports ready-mixeds, etc. to Chinese Puw, and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a Korean corporation that runs a wholesale and retail business of construction materials. Defendant C is a representative of Defendant Company that owns 100% of the shares of Defendant Company.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale of goods with the Defendant Company from July 2017 to November 201, 2017, concluded a contract for the sale of goods, and completed delivery to the Defendant Company on more than 90 occasions, and the amount of goods not paid by the Defendant Company as a result of the transaction made during the said period exceeds 200 million won.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendants selected the law of the Republic of Korea as the applicable law to the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts in determining the claim against the defendant company, the defendant company is obligated to pay the above amount of KRW 200 million for the goods unpaid and the delay damages therefor to the plaintiff.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) Defendant C directly entered into a contract for the sale of goods with the Plaintiff as the sole internal director of the Defendant Company; and (b) Defendant C may be deemed to be identical to the individual entrepreneur as it is reasonable for Defendant C to deviate from liability on the ground of its corporate personality; (c) Defendant C has a duty to pay the unpaid goods; and (d) Defendant C appears to have obtained the payment without the intent to pay the said goods from the beginning even if the said goods were supplied by the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant C is liable for tort.

① However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is merely a form of a legal entity in which the Defendant Company borrowed the form of a legal entity, but is virtually a legal entity.

arrow