(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.01.24 2016나6620 | 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) 인천지방법원 2017.01.24 2016나6620

물품대금

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Where there is no dispute between the parties to the underlying facts, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the plaintiff is a company engaged in meat and food materials wholesale business. The defendant is a person engaged in meat and related food materials sales business under the trade name "Cmate", and the plaintiff supplied meat and related food materials to the above Cmate from March 21, 2014 to September 3, 2014, but the above transaction was terminated without receiving KRW 4,617,700 as of September 3, 2014; the co-defendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter "B"); the defendant paid KRW 280,000 as of December 8, 2014; the defendant paid KRW 300,000 after the supply of the above goods under the trade name of "Cmate"); and the defendant paid KRW 50,005,000 after the supply of the goods.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B, a transferee of the business which belongs to the trade name, to pay 4,090,700 won for the unpaid goods (253,00 won - 280,000 won - 50,000 won), and damages for delay.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, from March 2014, the Defendant: (a) from around March 2014, the Defendant registered the business entity under the name of the Defendant and had the business entity operate the static coper; and (b) the Plaintiff was also aware of such circumstances; and (c) accordingly,

Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides, “A person who has allowed another person to engage in a business using his/her name or trade name, shall be jointly and severally liable with the third person who has transacted his/her business as an owner of the business.” Thus, in order to deem that the defendant is liable for the name lender, the plaintiff should have mistaken the defendant as the owner of the business at the time of

Each of the above evidences and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 6 shall be considered as the whole of the pleadings.

참조조문

-상법 제24조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.10.13 2015나37693

-수원지방법원 2021.02.04 2019나93110

-창원지방법원 2018.01.11 2017나3912

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.22 2017가단5110697

-대전지방법원 2015.07.03 2014나16324