물품대금등
1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to Plaintiff A with respect to KRW 18,050,80, and KRW 15,362,000 to Plaintiff B, and each of the said money. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26890, Feb. 1, 2016>
1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) between February 22, 2015 and August 2015, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) received electronic parts related to semiconductor equipment equivalent to KRW 72,245,800 from Plaintiff A; (b) received electronic parts equivalent to KRW 32,362,00 from Plaintiff B during the period from April 2015 to July 2015; (c) Defendant Co., Ltd. paid part of the price; (d) paid KRW 18,050,80 to Plaintiff A; and (e) paid KRW 15,362,00 to Plaintiff B; and (e) Defendant D Co., Ltd, as representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd., paid goods unpaid to the Plaintiffs as above until January 31, 2016; (e) Defendant Co., Ltd.’s offer of evidence and evidence No. 21 to the Plaintiffs as a whole; or (e) Defendant Co. 1’s offer of evidence No. 21 and evidence No.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Plaintiff A 18,050,800 won, 15,362,000 won, and each of the above amounts to Plaintiff B from February 1, 2016 to June 9, 2016, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case from February 1, 2016 to June 1, 2016, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.
B. Defendant D’s assertion argues that Defendant D’s drafting of an undertaking to individually repay the obligation to the Plaintiffs is by coercion of the Plaintiffs, and thus, Defendant D’s declaration of intent as stated in the said undertaking is revoked.
However, there is no evidence that Defendant D’s drafting of a letter of undertaking was made by the coercion of the plaintiffs. Thus, Defendant D’s assertion is without merit.
3...