(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.10.13 2019가단16153

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) 인천지방법원 2020.10.13 2019가단16153

물품대금

Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, as Defendant C, KRW 98,389,50, and each of them from February 17, 2017 to October 2020.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Plaintiff engaged in the business of manufacturing electronic parts with the trade name of “D” asserts that, until February 14, 2014, until February 14, 2014, the Defendant C traded with the Plaintiff and the Defendant C amounting to KRW 89,657,500, the outstanding amount was traded by the end of December 2013. However, according to the evidence submitted, the Plaintiff traded with “E” until February 14, 2014, and the Plaintiff traded with “F” after Defendant B opened the business of “F.”

The fact that the goods were supplied and the price of KRW 98,389,500 was not paid among them; that Defendant B opened “F” on February 17, 2014; and that the Plaintiff supplied the goods to Defendant B from February 26, 2014 and did not receive the price of KRW 43,00,380 among them.

B. The plaintiff asserted and determined that the defendants engaged in a partnership as a matrimonial relationship, and the defendant Eul acquired the defendant Eul's obligations and business rights. The defendants jointly and severally asserted that the plaintiff is liable to pay the total of KRW 141,389,880,000, which is the goods supplied to "E" and the goods supplied to "F".

As to this, Defendant C’s operation of “E” could not continue to conduct business with the Plaintiff and the business could not be discontinued, and Defendant C engaged in a transaction with the Plaintiff through the introduction of Defendant C. Defendant C merely attempted to perform the business management, etc. of “F” operated by Defendant C, and the Defendants did not conduct the business, nor did Defendant B have acquired the obligations and business rights of Defendant C.

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 3-4 and No. 5, it is recognized that the defendant C signed the acquirer's signature on the transaction statement with F, and the defendants' marriage relation is not particularly disputed.

However, the evidence and assertion presented by the Plaintiff were in a partnership relationship with the Defendants.

or Defendant B’s obligations.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2019.07.05 2018가단18742

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.10.23 2016가단21692

-대구지방법원김천지원 2016.07.13 2016가단1485

-서울남부지방법원 2019.01.15 2018가단228220

-창원지방법원마산지원 2017.11.30 2017가단101181