물품대금
1. The portion of the claim for payment of KRW 60,320 shall be dismissed among the lawsuits in this case.
2. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff was engaged in a wooden household manufacturing business under the trade name of “D”.
The Defendants completed business registration under Defendant B’s name with the trade name “E” and operated a wood household manufacturing business.
B. On May 26, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a payment order with the Defendants seeking payment of the goods price, etc., and issued a payment order with the Suwon District Court 2005Da2236, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul District Court (Seoul District Court 2005Da2236, stating that “the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 59,345,000 and damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum from the day after the payment order was served to the day of complete payment, and KRW 60,320,00 per annum.” The above payment order was served on the Defendants on May 31, 2005, and confirmed on June 15, 200
[Ground for Recognition] Defendant C: Judgment on deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the cost of demand procedure among the instant lawsuit is lawful, and the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 60,320 to the Defendants.
An ex officio amount paid by a public health class or litigation may be repaid through the procedure for determining the amount of litigation costs after the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and there is no benefit to seek a lawsuit separately.
(1) The lawsuit on this part is unlawful. This part of the lawsuit is unlawful.
3. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. According to the facts of recognition as to the plaintiff's cause of claim, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the above 59,345,000 won for which payment order was finalized and the damages for delay calculated by 20% per annum from June 1, 2005 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of payment order, to the plaintiff, unless there are other special circumstances.
B. As to the Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B merely lent the name of the business registration to Defendant C, who was her husband, and the Plaintiff was aware of such circumstances, and thus, the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff.