물품대금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 4, 2015 to the date of complete payment.
1. Basic facts are companies engaged in the business of manufacturing synthetic resin products. The defendant is a person who served as the representative director of the plaintiff from February 28, 2008 to June 13, 201. At present, in-house director C, the representative of the plaintiff, acquired the company of the plaintiff from the defendant on April 30, 2013, or can be recognized by the purport of Gap evidence No. 7 and all pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff supplied goods supplied from D to E operated by the Defendant. The Defendant purchased goods of KRW 132,116,60 from July 201 to September 2012 from the Plaintiff, but did not pay KRW 112,006,110 among them. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the unpaid amount to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant is obligated to refund the amount equivalent to the above advance payment to the Plaintiff, since he/she has received and appropriated the advance payment equivalent to KRW 86,500,000 in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, etc. and sold the Plaintiff to C without supplying the product.
C. The Defendant, as the actual operating entity of the Plaintiff, remitted KRW 30,000,00 on June 10, 201 and June 13, 201, respectively, to increase the Plaintiff’s capital, but withdrawn KRW 50,00,00 on June 21, 201. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 50,00,000 to the Plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. The statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 8 is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 132,116,60,00 on the part of the plaintiff as to the claim for payment of the price for the goods. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, it is impossible to confirm whether the evidence Nos. 2 and 6 was actually issued at the tax office, and according to witness F’s testimony, it is recognized that F was aware that the defendant had issued only the tax invoice to the plaintiff without any actual goods transaction in order to raise the plaintiff’s sales details at the time when the representative director is the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant was actually supplied with the goods equivalent