(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.08.22 2017나25666

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) 울산지방법원 2018.08.22 2017나25666

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a canning and freezing food wholesale retail business with the trade name in Ulsan-gu C, Ulsan-gu, and the Plaintiff was not entitled to KRW 9,240,900 out of the price of the goods (hereinafter “the price of the goods in this case”) even though he/she supplied a canning, etc. to a restaurant with the trade name “F” on the Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, and the second floor from January 28, 2016 to July 29, 2016.

The plaintiff and G, who are the defendant and the defendant, were aware that they run the restaurant of this case and delivered a canning, etc. to the restaurant of this case, and the registration of the restaurant of this case has been completed in the name of the defendant. The defendant as a party to goods transaction or as a nominal lender, is liable to pay the price of the goods of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. According to Article 756(1) of the Civil Act, a person who has had another person engage in a certain business using another person shall be liable for damages inflicted upon an employee to a third party regarding the performance of his/her business, and the defendant shall be liable to pay the price of the pertinent goods to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 as to whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant were liable for payment as a party to the transaction of goods, registration of the instant restaurant has been completed in the Defendant’s name, but it can be recognized that the actual operation of the instant restaurant was G, H, I, and the Defendant’s son. Accordingly, the first Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Defendant is the operator of the instant restaurant is without merit.

B. According to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, a person who permits another person to run a business using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable to pay to a third party who trades his/her name or trade name with the third party as the owner of the business.

However, Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

참조조문

-민법 제756조 제1항

-상법 제24조

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2020.08.20 2019나1435

-전주지방법원 2017.06.29 2016나595

-울산지방법원 2016.09.06 2016가단1532

-서울남부지방법원 2021.03.18 2020나52250

-전주지방법원 2017.05.10 2016가단10843