beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 151,225,065 and Defendant A from June 1, 2015 to May 19, 2016.
Reasons
1.The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be found in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers), by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.
The plaintiff is a corporation whose purpose is to manufacture chemical products, etc., and the defendant A is a personal business operator who makes a contract with each other and conducts a manufacturing business in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C, and the defendant B is the husband of the defendant A, who is the representative director of the corporation E (hereinafter referred to as "E") for the purpose of the manufacturing business of electronic parts.
B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods between the Plaintiff and D, at the F’s request, that had been in charge of the duties in D, manufactured and supplied chemical products, etc. equivalent to KRW 215,252,695 in D between April 25, 2014 and May 31, 2015, but did not receive KRW 151,225,065 among them.
2. The facts that Defendant A received chemical products, etc. from the Plaintiff and did not pay KRW 151,225,065 in the course of managing Defendant A’s claim against Defendant A do not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. As such, Defendant A is liable to pay KRW 151,225,065 to the Plaintiff and delay damages.
(3) The Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff the price for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff as the nominal lender pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, since Defendant A did not actually operate the D, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the price for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff as the nominal lender pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, as follows.
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay the unpaid goods jointly with the defendant A, as the joint business owner of the defendant B as the joint business owner of the defendant B, because he actually operated D through G, etc., who is an employee.
As to this, Defendant B did not give a specific instruction to G on the operation of D, and Defendant A operated D through G.