(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.24 2018가합510135

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.24 2018가합510135

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 541,680,232 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 8, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s goods payment claim 1) C (hereinafter “C”) against the Plaintiff Company C

) The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s subsidiaries D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

2) On October 2016, F, the representative director of C, and the principal, have paid the amount of goods equivalent to KRW 1,626,920,592 to the Plaintiff, and F, as the representative director and the principal, has made an authentic deed of a loan contract for debt payment (quasi-loan for consumption) with the content that “C shall pay the said debt as a joint and several surety” and “C shall be jointly and severally guaranteed by C.”

3) Of the price for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff, the remaining amount is KRW 541,680,232. (b) The Defendant’s establishment and mutual change 1) as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, G, a director of C, retired on December 31, 2016 and established the Defendant for the purpose of providing software consulting, development, and sale on January 2, 2017.

At the time of the establishment of the Defendant, the trade name was “H” and changed to the current trade name on May 1, 2017.

2) The Defendant is currently acquiring software license goods from D and resell them to an enterprise, and engages in the business of maintaining and repairing customer companies’ programs. [Grounds for recognition] Facts that there is no dispute, whether there is no clear dispute, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (including serial documentary evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties is that the defendant takes over the business of the infrastructure business division, which is the core business division of C, among the businesses of C, and uses "I" corresponding to the main part of C as its trade name, and thus, it is for mutual business takeover. Thus, Article 42 (1) of the Commercial Act is applied

참조조문

-상법 제42조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.07.16 2018나2067412

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.13 2015가단5274191

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.15 2019가합549598

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2019.10.02 2019고단260

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.27 2017가합532428