beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that manufactures and sells fire doors, and the Defendant is a person who transfers his/her business to Codefendant D (hereinafter “D”) of the first instance court on September 4, 2017 while the Plaintiff supplied fire doors from the Plaintiff in the name of “F” and sold them to a third party.
B. From June 15, 2016 to June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied a door door amounting to KRW 97,070,60 in total to the Defendant, and was not paid KRW 50,979,800 on July 31, 2017.
C. Around September 1, 2017, the Defendant transferred the Defendant’s claim KRW 28,025,80 to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the goods price to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 21,266,300 on November 2, 2017 and KRW 6,759,50 on November 21, 2017.
D agreed on September 4, 2017 to accept KRW 22,954,000 in the balance of the Defendant’s product price against the Plaintiff while taking over the business of “F” from the Defendant.
(hereinafter “this case’s assumption of Obligation”) is the balance after the Defendant deducteds claims against E that it transferred to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2017.
The Plaintiff is a business partner of GD Co., Ltd. in November 19, 2017, which was paid by D on September 29, 2017, and KRW 2,000,000.
1,050,000 won received from the defendant was appropriated for the defendant's goods price obligation.
E. Meanwhile, from July 1, 2017, D began to engage in the transaction of being supplied with a fire door from the Plaintiff. From July 1, 2017 to April 20, 2018, D received a total of KRW 80,642,650 from around July 1, 2017 to around April 20, supply of the door door door.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant arrangement to assume the obligation between the Defendant and D constitutes an overlapping assumption of the obligation, and the Defendant asserts that the said agreement constitutes an overlapping assumption of the obligation. 2) If the assumption of obligation is overlapping with the assumption of the obligation, it is stipulated in the assumption of the obligation.