beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.06.10 2016가단2611

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 111,718,700 on the Plaintiff and as a result, from February 13, 2016 to June 10, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s sales price obligations.

B. Under the above contract, from June 6, 2015 to December 10 of the same year, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with a total of KRW 30,705lus 271,718,700, a mixture of 40m, including 40m, and the Defendant Company paid KRW 160 million to the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 111,718,700 (271,718,700 - 160,000) out of the aggregate purchase price and delay damages therefor.

(2) If the Defendant Company pays in cash to the Plaintiff in advance, the Plaintiff asserted that the unit price per cubic meter in cubic meter is KRW 8,000 (Additional tax separately), but if the Defendant Company is supplied with aggregate first, the unit price per cubic meter in cubic meter is KRW 9,000 (Additional tax separately), and that the Defendants’ total amount payable to the Plaintiff is KRW 125,650,80,00. Thus, according to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff’s statement was acknowledged as having agreed with the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff’s statement No. 2 and 3 evidence No. 1 as above, and the entire purport of the pleadings was determined as follows: (a) the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with the mixed unit price of KRW 8,00 per cubic meter (Additional tax separately); (b) around February 1, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to pay the remaining purchase and sale amount of KRW 8,000 per cubic meter to the Plaintiff; and (c) the Plaintiff’s explanation was insufficient from KRW 10101,17.106.7.