(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.12.05 2014가합2257

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) 서울동부지방법원 2014.12.05 2014가합2257

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, while operating a business entity of the trade name “B” that manufactures and supplies clothing, received a request for the supply of clothing from D, which operated the business entity of “C” that sells clothing (hereinafter “instant business entity”), and manufactured and supplied clothing to D.

B. The instant business entity was insolvent on September 2013, and E, a creditor of D, transferred the instant business entity from D and operated the instant business entity from October 2013.

C. On October 26, 2013, while the Plaintiff was in custody of the clothing that was manufactured upon request from D for supply (hereinafter “the instant clothing”) and sold the instant clothing in KRW 160,129,200 to E, the representative of the creditors group against D on October 26, 2013. The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 130,129,000 out of the price of the goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is one of the claim groups against D, and the defendant is a joint and several surety for the joint purchaser of the custody clothes of this case or for the plaintiff E's obligation to pay for the goods. Thus, the plaintiff must pay 130,129,000 won for the unpaid goods for the custody clothes of this case.

B. Based on the judgment, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the defendant is one of the claims against D, but only such fact and the statement of evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 8 are insufficient to recognize that the defendant is a joint and several surety for the payment of the goods to the joint purchaser of the custody clothes of this case or the plaintiff E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2014.12.26 2014노1337

-서울북부지방법원 2020.05.14 2019가단139559

-서울동부지방법원 2020.01.22 2019나22137

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.06 2017가단5032681

-서울동부지방법원 2014.09.19 2013고단788