beta
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2019.08.22 2018가합1125

물품대금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 182,504,170 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from April 1, 2017 to August 22, 2019.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the main argument

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods equivalent to KRW 2,361,97,00 in total, including parks, signal transits, etc. from September 2016 to February 2017, pursuant to the goods supply contract concluded with the Defendant, but was paid KRW 1,541,97,00 as the price for the goods. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price for the goods unpaid and the delay damages therefrom. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant concluded a goods supply contract with C (hereinafter “C”) around 2014, and was provided with park, etc. and signal transits, etc., but from around 2016, it became difficult for the Company to become insolvent.

Accordingly, upon requesting the Plaintiff to lend money to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff loaned the amount equivalent to the price for the goods supplied by the Defendant to the Defendant. However, for the transaction performance of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), the Plaintiff proposed that D issue a tax invoice, etc. as if the Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant. The Defendant explained the Plaintiff’s proposal to C and obtained its consent.

In the end, the defendant is merely liable for the corresponding loan obligations if the plaintiff pays to the plaintiff the price for the goods supplied by the defendant to C via D instead of the price for the goods supplied by the defendant to C, not the actual goods supply contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.

B. If the purport of the entire argument is added to each statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 11, a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 2,25,536,712 was issued in relation to the supply of parks, etc., which were supplied by C from September 2016 to February 2017, which is equivalent to KRW 2,255,536,712, which are supplied by C, and the person being supplied with the Plaintiff. The head of the Plaintiff’s business partner’s transaction shall be counted as the credit purchase account for D, and the amount of KRW 2,255,536,712 is counted as the credit purchase account for D.