logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.07.13 2017나2318
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed by this court.

Reasons

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) From August 2015 to April 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the automobile parts equivalent to KRW 10,072,000 to “C”, which are the Defendant’s employees, through “C” as the Defendant’s workplace, and received only KRW 1,400,000 from the Defendant on August 14, 2015, and only KRW 90,000,00 from the Defendant on March 4, 2016. Therefore, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of unpaid goods (i.e., KRW 10,072,00-1,40,000, KRW 90,000, KRW 900,000 to the Plaintiff’s employees (i.e., KRW 10,000) and damages for delay.2) Even if the Defendant is a separate independent business operator who is not the Defendant’s employee, the Defendant lent his name to B, and the Defendant was liable for the Defendant’s director.

B. The judgment 1) The plaintiff is a juristic person operating the wholesale and retail business of automobile parts. The defendant does not dispute between the parties that run the automobile repair business under the trade name of "C," but only the statement of No. 1 and No. 2-1 through No. 9 (Detailed Statement of Transactions) is insufficient to recognize that B was an employee of the defendant, and the plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the defendant through the above B and delivered automobile parts to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion of this part is without merit. Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides that "The person who allowed another person to conduct the business by using his name or trade name is jointly and severally liable to pay to the third party who trades with the third party." However, since the plaintiff was a person who operated the automobile repair business independently by sub-leases part of the defendant's business establishment, the plaintiff was erroneous as the defendant's business owner at the time of the transaction with "C".

arrow