(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.12.21 2017가단24624

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) 인천지방법원 2017.12.21 2017가단24624

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the sales business of the public water storage fish, and B purchased a public water storage fish from the Plaintiff from around 2010 to October 31, 2016, and operated a restaurant called “D” in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C.

B. B did not pay to the Plaintiff KRW 51,315,00 out of the price for the above public water storage (hereinafter “the price for the public water storage in this case”). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B to seek the payment of the price for the public water storage in this case and won (Seoul District Court 2017Da574), and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

C. From January 23, 2017, the Defendant was operating a restaurant with the same trade name as the above D on the ground of the Party E from January 23, 2017, and purchased and used a public water storage language from the Plaintiff.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant lent his name to B to operate a restaurant in the name of "D" and caused the plaintiff to mislead the defendant as the owner of the business. Thus, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay the plaintiff the price for the non-public water storage of this case. 2) Even if the defendant did not lend his name to B, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the price for the non-public water storage of this case ordered by B as the user of B.

3) Since the Defendant continued to use the trade name of “D” after being transferred from “D” from “B, the Defendant, as a transferee of business, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the proceeds of the instant private water storage as the transferee of business. B. Determination 1) The Defendant’s statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 12 as to the assertion that the Defendant is the nominal lender, is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant lent the name to B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

Furthermore, since the price for the private water storage of the case for which the Plaintiff seeks payment is the price for the private water storage arising during the operation of the “D” in Seoul under his own name, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is true.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.12.18 2020나20717

-수원지방법원 2015.06.26 2015가단461

-광주지방법원 2018.04.12 2017가합53519

-대전지방법원 2017.08.17 2017가합100196 (1)

-수원지방법원 2019.11.29 2018가단28767