beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 53,620,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from June 19, 2015 to September 30, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells agricultural and fishery products under the trade name of “D,” and Defendant B is a person who sells agricultural products in the trade name of “E” and “F.”
B. From November 2013, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant B with agricultural products.
C. As of December 24, 2014, Defendant B agreed to pay the price for the goods that the Plaintiff did not pay to the Plaintiff as of December 24, 2014 to KRW 53,620,00, and Defendant B agreed to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff by March 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against Defendant B, barring special circumstances, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 53,620,00,00 and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 19, 2015 to September 30, 2015, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 15% per annum under the same Act.
B. The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant C, the denial of the defendant B, registered the business with the trade name "F" and traded agricultural and fishery products with the plaintiff, and the defendant C also bears the duty to pay the above goods price. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant C had been supplied with agricultural and fishery products from the plaintiff while running the above company with the defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.
In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that even if Defendant C did not directly operate the “F,” the Plaintiff is registered as the business entity of the said business entity, and thus, the Plaintiff is also liable for the nominal name holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
According to each of the above evidence, it is recognized that Defendant C is registered as a representative of F’s business registration certificate, but it is also subject to the provisions of Article 24 of the Commercial Act.