(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2020.10.15 2019가단8551

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2020.10.15 2019가단8551

물품대금

Text

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 30,321,600 won, and 6% per annum from December 16, 2018 to January 15, 2020.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

A. On September 1, 2018, Defendant C entered into a contract for civil engineering works for the creation of the headquarters and factory of Defendant C with Defendant Incorporated Incorporated Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

B. On November 3, 2018, the Defendant Company entered into a ready-mixed order contract with the Plaintiff for the said civil works (payment terms are provided in cash on the 15th day of the following month), and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation owed by the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff.

C. In November 2018, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with a total of KRW 632 Rab, 40,321,600 in accordance with the above ready-mixed order contract. Of the price, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10 million and the remainder KRW 30,321,600 was not paid.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (including each number, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of assertion and judgment, the defendant company is a party to the ready-mixed supply contract, and the defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the remainder of 30,321,600 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff as a joint and several surety.

As to this, Defendant C alleged that it was not paid the construction cost under the contract for civil works by the Defendant Company, but this is merely an internal issue among the Defendants, and it is not possible for Defendant C to refuse the obligation as a joint and several surety against the Plaintiff on the ground of such circumstance.

Meanwhile, according to the documents submitted by the Defendant, the obligation of the Defendant C against the Defendant Company is proved to have been transferred to the Plaintiff on June 5, 2020. However, the assignment of the obligation seems to have been for the repayment of the obligation, and there is no evidence to prove that the assignment of the obligation was substituted for the repayment of the obligation. Thus, it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s repayment of the claim was made

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2021.02.09 2020가단1380

-전주지방법원 2016.08.17 2016가단12016

-울산지방법원 2020.09.17 2019나1558

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.09.04 2015가단6213

-제주지방법원 2016.10.28 2015가단16643