beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who engages in wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “E.” The Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial, as the Defendant’s mother, engaged in the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “G” from September 1, 1997 to “G” (hereinafter “G”) in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul. On July 1, 2008, the Defendant opened a clothing and retail business with the trade name of “D” in “D” (hereinafter “D”) in the name of the Defendant on July 1, 2008.
B. From August 17, 2009 to October 13, 2010, the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 101,067,000 in aggregate to D, and C paid a total of KRW 51,969,750 to the Plaintiff for the unpaid goods amounting to KRW 49,09,097,250 in total (i.e., KRW 101,067,00 in - KRW 51,969,750), and the transaction of the goods was terminated on October 13, 2010.
After that, the Plaintiff supplied some clothes to D on the condition of cash decision-making, and the amount of the original clothes was approved in cash.
C. On February 25, 2013, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail demanding the Defendant and C to pay the instant goods, and the Plaintiff received KRW 3.4 million in total from C over ten times from December 2, 2013 to April 30, 2013.
C On December 19, 2013, upon filing a petition for bankruptcy with the District Court as 2013Hadan4638, the C was declared bankrupt on October 23, 2014 (finality, November 7, 2014), and was decided to authorize the exemption from liability as the District Court Decision 2013Ma4621 on April 23, 2015.
(Confirmation on May 8, 2015). 【Grounds for Recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry in Gap’s 1 through 6 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties: (a) the Defendant operated D together with the Defendant’s mother C; (b) the Defendant, even not with the Defendant and C’s joint operation, is liable as the nominal owner of D’s business registration; and (c) the Defendant bears the responsibility as the nominal owner. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the instant goods amounting to KRW 45,697,250, = 49,097,250.