유류대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants were jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 711,869 and its amount from October 1, 2010.
1. In full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and witness D's testimony and pleading as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff operating the oil supply business may recognize the fact that the plaintiff jointly supplied oil to the defendants who operated the agricultural business from October 2004 to January 2009, and the total amount of oil price supplied during the above period reaches 65,116,241 won.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the unpaid oil price of KRW 15,060,812, and delay damages therefor, which the Plaintiff seeks after deducting the amount of the Plaintiff’s repayment from the above oil price.
2. Determination as to the defendants' defenses, etc.
A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion 1) Defendant C divorced on June 2, 2004 from Defendant B and Defendant C. Since the instant claim for oil payment occurred after the Defendants divorced, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is without merit. 2) Since the specifications submitted by the Plaintiff were voluntarily prepared by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s transaction statement submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be trusted. At each time of transaction with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff deposited the relevant order oil payment in advance and was supplied with oil, and thus, the Plaintiff paid the oil payment in full.
3) Although there is unpaid oil payment for domestic affairs, the Plaintiff’s claim for oil payment is placed on the short-term extinctive prescription of three years for goods sold by the merchant, and the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for oil payment arising from the continuous goods supply contract individually proceeds from the occurrence of each credit payment claim. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for oil payment incurred three years prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit has expired by prescription. (B) In light of the aforementioned facts of determination as to the Defendants’ claim 1, 1, 2, and the purport of the testimony and oral argument of the witness witness Eul and witness D, even after legal divorce of the Defendants, tax invoices were issued by the Defendants to be supplied with Defendant C even after legal divorce.