(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.13 2015가단117477

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 2016.05.13 2015가단117477

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. According to the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2-2 of the basic facts, the Plaintiff takes over KRW 88,723,400 from October 29, 2014 to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is recognized as having notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims as above.

2. The defendant's main defense against the defendant's main defense is that the plaintiff's transfer of claims from B constitutes a litigation trust with the main purpose of conducting litigation, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff asserts that B supplied the original unit to the defendant from August 2010 to September 201, 201. Since the defendant did not pay KRW 88,723,400 out of the above goods price, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff who acquired the above goods price claim should pay the above KRW 88,723,400 and damages for delay.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant supplied the original body to C (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") working for the defendant, and that the defendant paid a part of the original body on behalf of the plaintiff due to friendly relations with the plaintiff.

B. The determination is based on the following circumstances, namely, the transaction partner name that was supplied by B, according to the work written by B, is called “C (A),” and the non-party company opened on March 18, 2009 and closed on April 30, 2012. B received the price of the goods from the non-party company or the non-party company’s representative director, and received the price of the goods from the defendant or the non-party company after closure, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) evidence Nos. 6 and evidence Nos. 7 are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that B supplied the goods to the defendant company; and (b) there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, it is true.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.12.07 2016가합680

-의정부지방법원 2016.08.19 2016가단105220

-의정부지방법원 2019.10.04 2018노3202

-인천지방법원 2014.09.23 2014가합1856

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.05 2015가단5076076