logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2017.06.14 2016가단18412
레미콘대금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 31,545,59 and Defendant A from February 24, 2015 to November 1, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing ready-mixed, supplied ready-mixed to Defendant A at the site of multi-household construction in Daegu-gu and one parcel of land (hereinafter “instant construction”), and entered into a contract with Defendant A to receive the price (hereinafter “instant contract for the supply of ready-mixed”). On the other hand, Defendant B and C on the same day jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation for ready-mixed payment that Defendant A bears to the Plaintiff according to the above contract for the supply of ready-mixed.

B. On July 25, 2014, the Defendants prepared a supply contract for ready-mixed in the name of the Defendants and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

C. According to the instant ready-mixed supply contract, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixeds worth 53,245,599 won at the instant construction site agreed with Defendant A during the period from August 2014 to December 2, 2014, and the Defendants paid to the Plaintiff KRW 31,545,59 (= KRW 53,245,599 - KRW 17,2700,000) on December 1, 2014; and the Defendants paid to the Plaintiff KRW 23,23,200,000 to the end.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants asserting that they are the primary debtor and joint and several sureties under the instant ready-mixed supply contract are liable to pay the amount of ready-mixed supplied by the Plaintiff.

As seen next, the Defendants asserted that the actual party to the instant ready-mixed supply contract or the obligor for the payment of the price is F or F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”). However, the Plaintiff did not have any one-way on the part of F or E, and Defendant A did pre-contract for the volume of ready-mixed including the preparation of the above ready-mixed supply contract, and the Plaintiff did so at the request of the Defendant A.

arrow