물품대금
1. Defendant A’s agricultural partnership shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 131,326,50 and its amount from May 23, 2017 to the date of full payment.
1. From June 10, 201 to December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company a total of KRW 619,524,50,00 with grain equivalent to the total of KRW 619,524,50,00, and the Defendant Company paid only KRW 488,198,00 to the Plaintiff out of the price of the above goods, there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, the Defendant Company is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 131,326,50 (=619,524,500 – KRW 48,198,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 23, 2017 to the date following the delivery date of the original original copy of the instant payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff.
2. Determination as to claims against Defendant B and C
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant B is the representative director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant C is the husband of the Defendant Company who actually operates the Defendant Company. Since the said Defendants agreed to pay the Defendant Company’s goods payment obligation directly or jointly and severally with the Plaintiff, the said Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of KRW 131,326,50 of the unpaid goods payment amount and delay damages therefor to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the said agreed fact is not recognized, the Defendant Company is an incorporated farming association established pursuant to the Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises (hereinafter “Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises Act”) and is subject to the provisions of the Civil Act pursuant to Article 16(8) of the same Act. As long as the said Defendants correspond to the Defendant Company’s members, the said Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of the said goods payment obligation corresponding to the partnership’s obligations.
B. Examining the determination of the assertion of a direct payment agreement or a joint and several guarantee agreement, and adding up the overall purport of the pleadings to the statement in the evidence No. 4, Defendant C made a telephone conversation with D, who is an employee of the Plaintiff, on December 19, 2016.