물품대금
1. Defendant B’s KRW 10,845,010 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from September 1, 2012 to October 6, 2014.
As to the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff supplied the sum of the outstanding amounts not received from the Defendant during the period from January 31, 2012 to August 31, 2012, 2012, to Defendant B who manufactures a wooden box with the trade name “D”. The fact that the total amount of the outstanding amounts not received from the Defendant out of the total amount of KRW 10,845,010 does not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or that Defendant B does not clearly dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is deemed that Defendant B led to confession under Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure
Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay 10,845,010 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 1, 2012 to October 6, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff asserted by the parties to the determination of the claim against Defendant C, with the trade name “E”, supplied the joint board to Defendant C, who had engaged in the business of manufacturing a wooden box, by October 31, 201. Of the joint board price, the accounts receivable not received from Defendant C were totaled KRW 12,801,416, and sought payment of the accounts receivable against Defendant C.
As to this, Defendant C asserts that only lent the name of the business operator to Defendant B, and that he did not receive any satisfy from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances.
Judgment
The plaintiff's claim is based on the premise that the other party to whom a joint plate was supplied by October 31, 201 is the defendant C.
Defendant B opened “E” in the business of manufacturing wooden boxes on September 15, 1996, but closed the said “E” on January 15, 2005, and opened the business of operating the same trade name as that of Defendant C, who is a mother of the same day, and operated the same business. On December 31, 2011, Defendant C discontinued the said E under Defendant C’s name and opened the same business in the same place as E with its own business operator on January 30, 2012, and Defendant C opened the same business.