양수금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 59,213,373 won, and 5% per annum from May 16, 2013 to September 8, 2017.
Facts of recognition
A. Defendant A completed business registration with respect to the electronic component manufacturing business, etc. under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendants jointly engaged in the said “C” business.
B. The Dae-wheele Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mo-wheeled Electronic”) had a claim against the Defendants for the amount of KRW 92,213,373 against the Defendants, but on May 8, 2013, transferred the said claim against the Defendants to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the goods payment to the Plaintiff, and on May 9, 2013, notified the Defendants of the assignment of the said claim.
C. From September 6, 2013 to July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 33,000,000, out of the aforementioned KRW 92,213,373 from the Defendants’ side.
[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6, and the facts of the above recognition as to the grounds for the claim for judgment as to the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of the remainder of the takeover debt (=92,213,373 won - 33,000,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from May 16, 2013 to September 8, 2017, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, until September 8, 2017, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case.
1) The Defendants’ assertion 1) The Defendants are non-M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-M Co., Ltd.”)
The aforementioned “C” business was transferred to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the non-M company asserts to the effect that it took over the remainder of the Defendants’ obligation to the Plaintiff, as the Defendants’ obligation to pay KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff.
In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 6, No. 6, and No. 1, the non-M company paid money to the Plaintiff on the pretext of partial repayment of the defendants' product price obligations.