logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.10.12 2017가단6145
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 43,214,864 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 31, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a serial number) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff supplied a written appeal, etc. to the "C" (hereinafter the "instant enterprise") represented by the defendant from December 2, 2016 to March 2017, and the unpaid amount reaches KRW 43,214,864.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 43,214,864 won due and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 31, 2017 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case (the original copy of the payment order).

2. As to the judgment of the defendant's defense, the defendant asserts that the company of this case was actually operated by D and only lent its name to the defendant, and the plaintiff was aware of such name lending, and thus, it does not bear liability under the Commercial Act.

The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal titleholder as the business owner. Therefore, if the other party to the transaction knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact of the nominal name, liability shall not be borne. In this case, the nominal lender who asserts exemption from liability shall bear the burden of proof as to whether the other party to the transaction knew of,

In light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the evidence mentioned in subparagraph 1 and the evidence mentioned in subparagraph 1, and witness E and F’s testimony as a whole, the actual operator of the instant business is merely a nominal lender D with the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone.

or on the name of the Plaintiff, in bad faith.

arrow