beta
(영문) 청주지방법원제천지원 2014.09.17 2013가단5455

보증채무금

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B asserted that Defendant B purchased land or concluded various contracts under the name of Defendant A in the preparatory document dated July 23, 2014, and thus, Defendant B is deemed Defendant B to have performed various legal acts.

In the name of Defendant A, one of his children, carried out the construction of a new factory on the land outside C and nine parcels of land (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. Naco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Naco”) contracted the instant construction from Defendant B, and entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on May 13, 201 with the content that Naco received a supply of the construction material equivalent to KRW 107,089,400 necessary for the instant construction work from the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff from June 2, 2011 to the same year

7. Until August 18, 198, supply 106,056,355 won of construction materials, such as Leratan and EPS board, to Naco.

However, Naco failed to pay 105,407,355 won out of the price of the goods to the Plaintiff because it was not paid by the Defendant B.

Naco agreed to deliver construction materials to the instant construction project, including the Plaintiff, and pay them directly from the Defendants. On January 17, 2012, the said companies constituted the Credit Council and delegated the right to agree on the settlement and receipt of payments from the Defendants to the representative director of D, a single company, and appointed the Defendants as the representatives of creditors.

E. The Defendants, on May 11, 2012, paid the price after reducing the total amount to 60% between E, and agreed to obtain a loan from a financial institution or pay it by selling a factory to be newly built by the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 7, purport of whole pleading

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants borrowed 60% of the total amount at a bank as collateral between E and the father on May 11, 2012.