logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.11.11 2015가단11933
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,630,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from December 16, 2014 to November 11, 2015.

Reasons

1. Determination on the assertion of liability as a contracting party or a business transferee

A. The Plaintiff asserted with the Defendant during the period from around September 30, 2007 to September 30, 2014, and concluded and fulfilled a contract under which the Plaintiff received sets and clothes, etc. from the Defendant to laundry them again and again supplied them to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”), but the Plaintiff was not paid the amount equivalent to KRW 32,300,000,000, and thus, the said money and damages for delay are claimed.

In addition, the defendant takes over C's hospital business from C on August 16, 2012 and continues to use the same trade name as "Dvalescent hospital". Thus, the defendant claims for the payment of the above 32.3 million won and damages for delay arising from the transaction with C and the defendant.

B. According to the written evidence Nos. 4 and 5, it is recognized that the Defendant registered the business with the trade name “Dvalescent Hospital” on August 16, 2012, and that part of the transaction amount was paid to the Plaintiff under the Defendant’s name.

However, in full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, and 9, the fact that the plaintiff concluded the contract of this case and did not have been the other party to the act at the time of the transaction, and that C actually operated the above hospital and the defendant was employed and worked as a doctor by the defendant. Thus, the facts acknowledged above alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff entered into the contract of this case with the defendant who is merely an employee of C, or that the defendant acquired the above hospital business from C,

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above assertion.

2. Determination as to the assertion of the nominal lender’s liability

A. The fact that the Plaintiff operates laundry service business, and that the Defendant permitted C to operate the business of the said hospital in the name of the Defendant, and thereby becomes the business owner of the said hospital on August 16, 2012; the Plaintiff’s name was KRW 3 million on December 19, 2013; and the Plaintiff’s name was January 2, 2014.

arrow