미수금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 41,332,616 won and the period from December 30, 2016 to July 14, 2017.
1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff sold urban gas materials to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) and exempted the Defendant Co., Ltd from KRW 26,548,000,000, out of the outstanding amount of KRW 146,548,000 until December 9, 2013; (b) the Plaintiff sold urban gas materials worth KRW 38,832,616 to the Defendant Co., Ltd. around March 2015; and (c) the Plaintiff sold urban gas materials worth KRW 38,832,616 to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.; and (d) the fact that the Plaintiff repaid the outstanding amount of KRW 146,548,00 to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”); and (e) the Plaintiff’s joint and several liability agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Co., Ltd. in accordance with the joint and several liability agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 48,832,616 (i.e., KRW 146,548,00,000 - KRW 100,000 - KRW 26,548,832,616 - KRW 38,832,616 - KRW 5,000,000 - KRW 5,000,000), and damages for delay.
3. Determination as to the defendants' defenses, etc.
A. The Defendants asserted that on March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 7,500,000 out of the price of the said goods to the Plaintiff, and according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1, Defendant C paid KRW 7,500,000 out of the price of the said goods to the Plaintiff on the date of the said assertion. As such, the above claim for the price of the goods was extinguished within the scope of KRW 7,50,000, the Defendants’ defense is with merit.
B. The Defendants are relatively small in the amount of the goods exempted from comparison with other trading companies of the Plaintiff as a result of long-term transactions with the Plaintiff. Thus, they asserted that the Plaintiff is obligated to exempt the Defendants from the payment of the goods equivalent to KRW 11,198,058. However, the evidence alone presented by the Defendants is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff has the same obligation. Thus, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.
(c).