물품대금
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,152,923 as well as 20% per annum from October 7, 2014 to the date of full payment.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, a company engaged in manufacturing and wholesale business of building materials, supplied building materials to “C” engaging in wholesale and retail business of steel and miscellaneous materials.
The Defendants actually operated Defendant A as a couple, and Defendant A registered as a business entity of Defendant C and issued tax invoices, etc. for transactions with the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff was supplied with construction materials to the Defendants from April 2012 to September 2013, and the price for goods not paid until September 2013 is KRW 20,152,923.
C. On December 6, 2013, Defendant A prepared and submitted a joint agreement in the name of the Defendants to pay the amount of goods unpaid to the Plaintiff in installments from January 5, 2014 to March 5, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the parties' arguments
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20,152,923 and damages for delay, as joint business operators of C, barring any special circumstance.
B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that, first, Defendant B lent only the name of business registration to Defendant A, and the Plaintiff is a malicious trader with knowledge of such fact, so it cannot be claimed against Defendant B for payment of the price of goods.
However, Defendant B lent only the business registration name to Defendant A.
In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff was aware of such fact, and the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.
(2) The Defendants asserted that they again agreed with the Plaintiff to suspend the payment of the price of the instant goods until they receive the construction cost, at the construction site where the Defendants invested the building materials supplied by the Plaintiff.
However, the above assertion is acceptable.