logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.07.13 2015가합3972
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 company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling the alleys and the alley boxes. The Defendant’s husband B from around 2004 to the Plaintiff’s husband B engaged in the business of manufacturing the alley boxes under the name of “D,” and the Defendant also worked in D around that time.

B. Since the closure of the “D” operated by B due to the dishonor, the Defendant, on June 30, 2007, leased the instant factory from E a deposit of KRW 18 million, monthly rent of KRW 2 million, and on July 3, 2007, the name of the New Mine Tax Office was F, as “F”, and the business operator was registered as the Defendant, and then continues to engage in the manufacturing of the paper boxes in the instant factory with the trade name “F” at the instant factory until now.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff supplied abnormals to B under a contract for the supply of paper boxes. On the other hand, on June 2007, the Plaintiff reached KRW 259,235,742 in total (hereinafter “instant price for goods”).

Accordingly, on July 12, 2007 against B, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order for the instant goods payment order with Suwon District Court 2007Guj1848, Suwon District Court 2007. On July 16, 2007, “B is ordered to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the day when the original copy of the above payment order was served to the Plaintiff, and the above payment order became final and conclusive on August 3, 2007 because B did not raise any objection.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 7, each entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 7, and the result of the order to submit documents by June 8, 2016, as a result of the order to submit documents by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties is that the defendant takes over the business of "D" from the husband B and continues to use the common trade name and operates the business. Article 42 of the Commercial Act is applicable.

arrow