logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.08.10 2015가단31935
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s payment order based on the Jeonju District Court 2014 tea 2502 claim against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff as the wife of C on November 24, 2011 (hereinafter “instant main shop”) is the Plaintiff’s wife.

(C) Business registration was made under the trade name, and C substantially operated the main points of this case. (2) The Defendant is a company with the aim of selling alcoholic beverages, etc.

B. The Defendant’s delivery transaction of alcoholic beverages 1) C had engaged in entertainment tavern business from November 201 to March 26, 201, with the trade name “D” in Yansan-gu, Jeonju-si. (2) The Defendant supplied alcoholic beverages to the instant main points from November 201 to March 26, 2014.

C. On April 15, 2014, the Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff continued to be supplied alcoholic beverages by the Defendant until March 26, 2014,” and that “the Plaintiff remains 35,926,900 won.” 2) The above court issued a payment order on April 22, 2014, stating that “the Plaintiff shall be 5,926,900 won per annum from March 27, 2014 to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 20% per annum from the next day to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order.”

3) On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff did not file an objection within two weeks from the date of receiving the instant payment order, and thus, the instant payment order became final and conclusive on May 10, 2014. [The Plaintiff’s entries in Gap’s 1, 3, and Eul’s 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The obligation to pay alcoholic beverages unpaid to the Defendant was incurred by C while operating the main points of this case, and the Plaintiff was unaware of business permission under the Plaintiff’s name, and thus, the said obligation is not related to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not receive the payment order of this case.

② The Defendant was aware that C was actually operating the instant main points, and the Plaintiff.

arrow