beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.04.29 2014나3575

물품대금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff corresponding to the above revoked part shall be against the Defendants.

Reasons

1. As to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition 1) around May 2009, Defendant B completed the business registration of the company using the name of the Defendant C as “D” in the name of the Plaintiff, and operated the said company. (2) The Plaintiff supplied Bab World Cup, which is the 63,612,725 won in total, to the said D around May 2012 and June 2012, and received KRW 10,000,000 as the price for the goods. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23740, Jul. 25, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 23920, Jul. 5, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 23988, Jul. 27, 2012>

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As the actual business owner, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,612,725 (i.e., KRW 63,612,725 - KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 5,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant goods price”) and damages for delay as the nominal owner.

2. As to the defendants' defense of the extinguishment of obligation

A. On July 13, 2013, Defendant B and the Plaintiff agreed that the instant goods amounting to KRW 46,496,340 (=7,590 x 6,126) of KRW 46,590 in the aggregate of KRW 6,596,340 in Brazil 6,590 per head of F after consultation with F that manufactured and sold B, which is a finished product of clothing, was paid by Defendant B and the Plaintiff. Of the instant goods amounting to KRW 2,00,000, the remainder of the instant goods amounting to KRW 2,000 in the payment of other monetary claims against the Plaintiff. According to the agreement, the Plaintiff agreed that the instant goods amount to KRW 6,126 in the payment of monetary claims against the Plaintiff on July 15, 201, and that the instant goods amount to KRW 6,590 in the supply of the instant goods to the Plaintiff through consultation with the Plaintiff on the purchase price of the goods at issue.