beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 79,956,400 and as to Defendant B from June 1, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is running the wholesale and retail business of agricultural and fishery products at the seat of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and the Defendants are registered as joint operators of restaurants with the trade name of “G” located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).
B. From October 1, 2016 to May 19, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant B with food materials, such as hydrogen, etc. (hereinafter “instant goods”) to Defendant B. The remainder of the price of the goods that had not been paid until then is KRW 79,956,400 (hereinafter “the price of the instant goods”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 20 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), fact-finding results with respect to Mapo Tax Office, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that they continued to be supplied with the goods of this case from the Plaintiff while jointly running the restaurant of this case. This constitutes an obligation owed to all the Defendants due to commercial activities. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the goods of this case. Even if not, the Defendants leased their business names to the actual business owners of the restaurant of this case, thereby causing the Plaintiff to mislead the Plaintiff as the business owners of the restaurant of this case, thereby causing the Plaintiff to be mistaken for the goods of this case, and thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the goods of this case as prescribed in Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
B. Defendant C’s assertion is merely the registration of the name of the business operator under the tax law, and the actual operator of the restaurant of this case is H and I, and the above Defendant did not participate in the operation of the restaurant of this case. Thus, Defendant C was not obligated to pay the price of the goods of this case.
3. Determination
A. The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant B against the above defendant.