beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 34,530,100 and Defendant B with respect thereto from September 28, 2014, and Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 10, 2013, Dongyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Company”) entered into a contract for ready-mixed (hereinafter “instant contract”) with Defendant B, and Defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay ready-mixed price to the rehabilitation company under the said contract.
B. A rehabilitation company supplied ready-mixed to B from April 2013 to July 2013 under the instant contract, and B did not pay KRW 34,530,100 out of the supply price of the above ready-mixed.
C. After October 17, 2013, the rehabilitation company was decided to commence rehabilitation procedures as Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ma186, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the custodian of the rehabilitation company on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] With respect to the plaintiff, the defendant B and D, service by publication (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act), the fact that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant C, evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (including a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid balance of 34,530,100 won under the instant contract and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 10, 2014 to the day of full payment, following the day when the copy of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant, as the Plaintiff requested by the Plaintiff. Defendant C is from September 28, 2014, the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the said Defendant, and Defendant D is liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated from October 10, 2014 to the day of full payment.
B. As to this, Defendant C asserted to the effect that it is impossible to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because it was jointly and severally guaranteed on the instant contract by means of deception, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.