logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.01.30 2013가단58399
물품대금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the Plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of wholesale and retail business of electric materials.

Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is a corporation whose purpose is electrical construction business, etc., and Defendant B is the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods against the Plaintiff supplied goods to C (mutual “D” and the registration number of the electrical construction business) by September 201, which were the electrical business operator, and did not receive KRW 75,472,336 for the price of goods.

C closed on June 25, 2012.

C. Defendant Company’s incorporation and acquisition of license for electrical construction business was established on April 26, 2012, and acquired a license for electrical construction business from C on May 31, 2012.

C was appointed as the representative director of the defendant company on June 1, 2012 and resigned on June 27, 2012.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant Company’s assertion 1 A is the same company as D and the Defendant Company, since C transferred the electrical construction business license to the Defendant Company as a representative director.

Therefore, the defendant company is responsible for the repayment of the debt to the plaintiff of D.

② As the Defendant Company actually merged D, it is liable to repay its debt to the Plaintiff to the surviving company after the merger.

B) Defendant Company’s assertion as to Defendant B has the external form of a legal entity, but it merely takes the form of a legal entity and merely takes the form of a legal entity. Therefore, Defendant B is an individual company. Therefore, Defendant B is also liable for repayment. Defendant B’s assertion as to the Defendants merely takes over the electrical construction business license by establishing the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company is a company with considerable sales.

B. As seen earlier, D is not a legal entity, and it is based on this premise.

arrow