(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.27 2015가단24498

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) 수원지방법원 2016.05.27 2015가단24498

매매대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 5, 2012, the Defendant, with the trade name of “C”, was a merchant who runs wholesale and retail business, such as health foods, without having his/her place of business in Daejeon-gu D, Daejeon-gu, and permitted E to use the Defendant’s trade name and trademark.

E, after that, had a factory in Sung-gun F with the defendant's above trade name and run the business of manufacturing health food, etc. at the same time.

B. From June 30, 2012 to August 27, 2012, upon the introduction of G, the Plaintiff supplied F factories located in Sung-gun with goods equivalent to KRW 69,713,820, such as packaging paper necessary for manufacturing health foods. After issuing a tax invoice in the name of the Defendant, immediately after the supply of the goods, the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice in the name of the Defendant, and sent the tax invoice by registered mail to the Defendant’s business office.

C. Since then, E was subject to criminal punishment for a violation of the Food Sanitation Act, and its business was suspended, and the Plaintiff failed to pay for the goods.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 8, Eul's 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) concluded a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods and supplied the goods to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the price to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant, who permitted the use of name to E, is obligated to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff who misleads the Defendant as the business owner

B. In cases where an actor who entered into a judgment contract on the assertion that the other party to the contract is the defendant performs a juristic act in the name of another person, the party to the contract shall first determine the offender or the title holder as the party to the contract in accordance with the same intent if the intent of the actor and the other party coincide. If the intent of the actor and the other party are not in accord, the other party shall be reasonable based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and details of the contract

참조조문

-식품위생법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.02.13 2018나3930

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.11.19 2020가단103890

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.08.08 2017가단8962

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.30 2016가단38207

-수원지방법원 2019.07.11 2018나10866