(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.07 2016가단67456

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.07 2016가단67456

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserting the cause of the claim seeks payment of KRW 60,715,325 for the goods price against the Defendant, who operates a wholesale and retail business in the name of “C” on the grounds as stated in the attached Form.

2. Determination

A. In principle, a person who bears the obligation to pay for the purchase of goods is a seller. In order for a person who is not a buyer to pay for the purchase of goods as a primary debtor, it is limited to cases where a seller permits a purchaser of goods to use his/her name or trade name and trades a leased person under his/her name as a seller to mislead him/her as business owner.

B. As to the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff, who is operating a branch distribution and processing business solely with the descriptions of the Plaintiff’s documentary evidence submitted, was the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C. Meanwhile, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, as the registration of business was cancelled as the representative director of the Plaintiff in a pro-friendly relationship and the business relationship of branch distribution was maintained, B could no longer engage in the transaction of goods in the Plaintiff and branch distribution, the orders related to the actual branch distribution and the settlement of accounts related to B (B is recorded as a joint guarantor in the transaction agreement under the name of the Defendant), and the transaction of tax invoice with the Plaintiff using the name of “C” which has completed the business registration under the name of the Defendant.

Since it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff knew or was unaware of the name name of the Defendant due to gross negligence by notifying the Plaintiff of such circumstances in advance from the time when the transaction of goods was commenced using the name of “C”, it is difficult to view that the Defendant is liable for the name lending under Article 24 of the

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed for lack of grounds.

참조조문

-상법 제24조

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2016.05.31 2015가단42350

-인천지방법원 2021.04.15 2020가단225373

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.26 2016가단54375

-대전지방법원 2017.11.16 2017가단202392

-수원지방법원 2019.05.23 2018가단22752