beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 53,942,00 and the interest rate thereon from July 27, 2019 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the plaintiff's claim
A. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff supplied 66,942,00 won to Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co.”), and the Defendant E may recognize the fact that the Defendant Co., Ltd. guaranteed the Defendant Co.’s obligation to pay back the amount of 13 million won. The Plaintiff is a person who received reimbursement from the Defendant Co., Ltd.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 53,942,00 for 53,942,00 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from July 27, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.
B. Determination 1 on the Defendants’ assertion 1) The Defendant Company asserted that the Defendant Company’s assertion that the supply of ready-mixed from the Plaintiff is Defendant E, a subordinate company of the Defendant Company, and thus, the Defendant Company did not have the obligation to pay the price. However, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, the circumstances acknowledged as follows: (a) the Defendant Company issued a tax invoice for ready-mixed supplied from the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff’s supply of ready-mixed was used for the creation of an agricultural and industrial complex performed by the Defendant Company; and (c) the Defendant Company actually paid part of the price for ready-mixed. The Defendant Company’s assertion is exempt from the obligation to pay ready-mixed. The Defendant Company’s assertion is the Defendant Company’s on-site manager, and thus, the Defendant Company did not have the obligation to pay the price for ready-mixed. However, as seen above, the Defendant Company cannot be exempt from its liability as a guarantor, as long as it guaranteed the obligation to pay
Therefore, Defendant E’s assertion cannot be accepted.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is accepted with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.