logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.05.18 2018가단2349
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,121,150 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 20, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 22, 2017, the Defendant registered his/her business with the trade name “C” in subparagraph 1 of the B underground floor in Mapo-si, Militarypo-si.

B. On September 23, 2017, a trade agreement was prepared with the purport that the Plaintiff supplies grain and miscellaneous grains to the above C. The said agreement is accompanied by the Plaintiff’s automobile driver’s license and the Defendant’s certified copy of the Defendant’s resident registration card.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff supplied grain and miscellaneous grain to the above C, but has not received the price of 33,121,150 won so far.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3,121,150 won for the above goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 20, 2018 to the day of complete payment, as the plaintiff seeks.

B. As to this, the defendant argued that he lent the name of the business operator to the non-party D, etc., and that the plaintiff has no obligation to pay the price for the goods since he did not actually participate in the operation of the above marina.

However, even if the defendant's assertion is true, Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides that "a person who has permitted another person to conduct business by using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable with another person for payment to a third person who trades his/her own business as the owner of the business." According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff can be deemed to have transacted with the defendant as the owner of the business. Thus, the above argument by

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow