물품대금
1. The Defendant: KRW 78,730,554 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 10, 2017 to January 24, 2018; and
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff Company C (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) supplied D (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) with plastic food packaging paper equivalent to USD 95,257.50 from May 2012 to August 2013, 2013.
B. On March 13, 2014, the Defendant agreed to pay USD 70,257.50 which was not paid to the Plaintiff out of the price of the goods (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
C. The U.S. monetary market price at the time of November 14, 2017, near the date of the closing of the instant argument, is KRW 1,120.6 won per USD 1.
[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The defendant asserts that the party to whom the goods were supplied by the plaintiff's side is not the defendant but the defendant company, and thus cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim for the price of the goods. However, the agreement of this case stipulates that the defendant shall pay the price of the goods directly to the plaintiff in his personal qualification. Thus, regardless of who the party to the transaction of the supply of the goods,
B. The defendant asserts that in accordance with the agreement of this case, the defendant guaranteed the defendant's obligation to pay for the goods of the defendant company, and that the defendant's obligation to pay for the goods of the defendant company was completed with the application of the short-term extinctive prescription of three years, based on the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation.
The instant agreement provides that the Defendant shall pay directly to the Plaintiff the goods payment obligation to the Plaintiff Company, and the parties to the original obligation and the new obligation are different, so it cannot be interpreted that the Defendant’s obligation under the instant agreement against the Plaintiff as the guaranteed obligation. The Defendant’s claim for the completion of extinctive prescription is without merit, without examining the remainder.
C. The defendant is granted a decision to grant immunity in the U.S. court, and thus objection against the plaintiff.