beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 70,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from July 1, 2016 to May 8, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties concerned as to the facts of recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1 through 3, and evidence 1-2, and the overall purport of the testimony and pleading by the witness Eul, the plaintiff supplied the defendant Eul with a substitute contract from January 7, 2015 to November 6, 2015: Provided, That the defendant Eul with a bad credit standing at the time traded with the plaintiff's trade name "D" under the name of the defendant Eul with the plaintiff's consent, and (3) on November 11, 2015, the defendant Eul agreed to pay 80,000,000 won for the goods unpaid to the plaintiff on the last day of each month from the end of November 2015 to pay 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff in installments (hereinafter "the agreement of this case"), and (4) the defendant Eul paid 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff under the agreement of this case.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a partner who is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,00,000 (=80,000,000 - 5,000,000 - 5,000,000), and Defendant B bears the responsibility as a surety for Defendant A’s obligation to pay the said amount of goods.
3. Determination
A. Defendant B was granted immunity on the ground that Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant B did not have any benefit of protecting the right.
According to Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the above decision became final and conclusive around September 25, 2015 upon Defendant B’s decision to grant immunity on September 25, 2015 (In Incheon District Court 2015Da1773).
However, as seen earlier, Defendant B’s defense is without merit, since Defendant B agreed to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of the purchase-price after the above immunity decision and the immunity decision is not effective.
B. Considering the circumstances leading up to Defendant B’s operation of “D” in the name of Defendant A prior to the determination of the claim against Defendant A, the Defendants are alone indicated in the evidence No. 1-1-4.