beta
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.02.05 2014가합2876

매매대금

Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 101,345,970 and Defendant Blux, Inc. M.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From March 6, 2014 to April 8, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant Blutex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Blutex”) with an aggregate of KRW 101,345,970 on electrical equipment.

B. On March 7, 2014, Defendant Blut Holdings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Blut Holdings”), and A jointly and severally guaranteed all obligations, such as goods payment obligations owed by Defendant Blutex to the Plaintiff, and bills and checks payment obligations.

C. On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff urged Defendant Blut Holdings and A to perform the joint and several liability obligations.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The judgment on the cause of the claim is as seen earlier, that the Plaintiff supplied Defendant Bluxex with KRW 101,345,970 electrical equipment and materials, and that Defendant Blux Holdings and A jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt to Defendant Blux.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 101,345,970 for the goods and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 22, 2014 to the day following the day when the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendants, and from August 21, 2014 to the day when the copy of the instant complaint was repaid to the Defendants, and from August 21, 2014 to the day when the copy was repaid to each of the Defendants.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because the Plaintiff did not timely supply the electrical equipment to Defendant BBE, and the damage occurred. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ assertion. Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.