(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.09 2016나303909

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) 대구지방법원 2016.11.09 2016나303909

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. Determination on the claim for the price of goods

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into an original sales contract with Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial and supplied the original unit equivalent to KRW 35,862,300. The Defendant paid 25,500,000 to the Plaintiff the balance of the goods payment debt of KRW 25,50,000,000 in face value to the Plaintiff, thereby entering into a goods transaction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Even if the Defendant’s act of acting as an agent of the Defendant who entered into the said goods transaction contract is a juristic act other than authority, there is justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff has the right of representation to the Plaintiff E.

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay 25,500,000 won to the plaintiff.

B. According to the evidence evidence No. 5, Oct. 17, 2014, the Defendant: (a) recognized that the Defendant endorsed and delivered to the Plaintiff an electronic bill of KRW 25,500,000 at the face value (hereinafter “electronic bill of this case”); (b) on the other hand, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant concluded a criminal complaint with the Plaintiff as a witness agreement, on the following grounds: (c) viewed that “the Plaintiff would transfer the electronic bill to the Plaintiff within three days at the face value, and pay KRW 22,50,000 at the face value of the bill at the discount of not more than three (3) days at the face value; and (d) endorsed the electronic bill to the Plaintiff’s account; (e) the Defendant did not receive the discount of the bill; and (e) the Defendant was guilty of fraud; and (e) the Defendant’s criminal charge was concluded with the Plaintiff and the witness evidence No. 1 and the witness evidence No. 8.

It is insufficient to recognize that E has the authority to act as an agent for the Defendant, and that there was a justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff performed a legal act other than its authority, and that the Defendant delivered an electronic bill to the Plaintiff with the intent to pay the purchase-price obligation for goods to the Plaintiff, and that is otherwise recognized.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.04.06 2015가단33773

-전주지방법원군산지원 2020.01.21 2019가단1843

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.08.22 2018가단107048

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.10.30 2017가단35829

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.10 2015가단210109