logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.05.18 2017가단116836
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was closed on July 14, 2016, when the Plaintiff entered into a liquor supply contract with the Defendant, who operated an entertainment drinking house under the trade name of “C”, and supplied alcoholic beverages from April 29, 2015 to February 29, 2016. The Defendant was obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the outstanding amount of alcoholic beverages, KRW 15,021,536, as well as KRW 15,021,536, which is the immediately preceding business owner of the same trade name, for continuing transactions. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the outstanding amount of alcoholic beverages, KRW 35,872,897, and delay damages.

Even if the Defendant lent only the name of the business owner in the name of “C” to E, and even if it was actually operated by E, it is merely an internal issue of the Defendant and E, and the Plaintiff could not be known, so the Defendant is liable for the nominal name lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. The defendant's assertion is only lent to E only the business name of "C", and in fact, after E leases the above Nos. 701 and 702, 701 is registered as a business name "F" in its own name. 702 is divided and registered as a business name under the name of the defendant and G, and operated an entertainment drinking house under the trade name of "F" in the entire name of 701 and 702, and H, who is an employee of the plaintiff, supplies alcoholic beverages to E, so the plaintiff's counterpart is deemed E, and the defendant is not liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

2. Determination:

A. First of all, as to whether the Plaintiff entered into a liquor supply contract with the Defendant and supplied alcoholic beverages to the Defendant, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the fact that “C” was registered under the name of the Defendant on April 8, 2015, and the fact that the electronic tax invoice Nos. 18,547,371 won, totaled from April 30, 2015 to February 29, 2016, was issued by the supplier and the Defendant.

However, the foregoing.

arrow