(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.12.12 2017나1473 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2017.12.12 2017나1473

물품대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the business of collecting and transporting scrap metal in the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who runs the business of collecting and transporting scrap metal in the trade name of “D,” and the “E” is a company that engages in the business of supplying scrap metal.

B. From February 28, 2015 to October 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 126,300,000 as the advance payment for the supply of scrap metal contract to D, and received supply of scrap metal equivalent to KRW 101,516,932 from D.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) heard from the Defendant that “E will be acquired and operated, and the advance payment will be made whenever the scrap metal would be made after the cover of the scrap metal.” The Plaintiff entered into a contract for supply of scrap metal with the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff advance payment of KRW 24,783,068 corresponding to the portion of the scrap metal supplied, and delay damages therefor. 2) The parties who entered into the contract for supply of scrap metal with the Defendant are not the Defendant but the vice president of E. The vice president.

In other words, the defendant only lent the name of D operated by the defendant to E at the request of E on January 2015, and did not conclude a contract for supply of scrap metal with the plaintiff, and F is not an employee of the defendant.

In addition, the plaintiff was well aware of the above facts.

Therefore, the defendant does not bear the obligation to return advance payment under the supply contract of scrap metal to the plaintiff.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view the parties to a contract for supply of scrap metal as the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in view of the fact that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment, and the entries and images of Gap 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (including paper numbers) and the testimony of this court witness F (hereinafter “F”) as the whole purport of the pleadings:

Even if the Plaintiff borrowed the name from the Defendant as the Defendant’s assertion, the nominal lender is a third party.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2015.11.27 2015고단2

-서울남부지방법원 2018.02.06 2017가단234488

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.02.07 2016가단3712

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.07.15 2015가단5251

-대구지방법원 2018.06.08 2018나301884