(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.11.25 2016나50752

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) 서울남부지방법원 2016.11.25 2016나50752

물품대금

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a design and construction company for interior, and the Defendant is a software development and sale company.

B. On January 15, 2014, a contract was concluded under the name of the original Defendant that the Plaintiff, as the contractor, ordered the Defendant, who is the contractor, to manufacture and supply the interior of the interior of the interior of the human body to be used in the Mongolian store in KRW 23,00,000.

(hereinafter “instant contract.” 【The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to the instant contract was concluded with the Defendant as the parties to the instant contract, with the fact that there was no dispute as to the ground for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings. The Defendant, as the parties to the contract, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 23,300,000 (i.e., the value of the goods, including surtax 25,30,000 - the down payment already paid 2,00,000) and damages for delay.

Even if the defendant is not a party to the contract, it is necessary to bear the burden of guarantee liability as it seals the contract of this case for issuing the surety insurance policy.

If the Defendant did not have the intent to assume the contractual and guarantee liability, it constitutes a deception, and thus, it should be held liable for tort.

The actual party to the contract of this case is B.

Upon entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff demanded B to issue the surety insurance policy to guarantee the payment of the price of goods, but B requested B to prepare a contract under the name of the Defendant so that the said bond can not be issued under its own name.

The defendant only lent the name so that he can be issued the above securities at the request of B, but is not a party to the contract of this case since there was no fact that he participated in the contract of this case.

In addition, it is not true that the contract of this case was sealed by the intention of guarantee, and there is no fact that the deception was made.

Judgment

A contract liability shall be established.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.12.23 2015가단215018

-의정부지방법원 2018.04.19 2016가합56417

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.01.18 2012노3932

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.15 2020나3412

-서울중앙지방법원 2012.11.13 2012고정3050