beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 51,073,160 as well as 20% per annum from January 6, 2015 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The facts below the underlying facts are either in dispute between the parties or in recognition of Gap's evidence 1 to 3, witness C's testimony by reference to the whole purport of the pleadings.
A. From May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff operates a mobile phone parts manufacturer with the trade name “D”.
From May 27, 2010, the Defendant operated an electronic components processing and assembly company with the trade name “E”, and F operated an electronic components manufacturing company with the trade name “G” from July 12, 2012 to “G” in the same building as the Defendant.
B. From May 2014 to November 2014, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice and a detailed statement of transaction made between the person receiving G or E or the other party to the transaction, and supplied the total amount of KRW 67,498,610, and received KRW 16,425,450 from the Defendant or F.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant and F are practically in a partnership relationship with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the full amount of the unpaid goods.
B. Defendant and F are not in a partnership relationship, and the Plaintiff was engaged in a transaction with F, and the Defendant was engaged in a transaction with F, and the Defendant continued to engage in a transaction with the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for the obligation to pay for the goods during the transaction period between the Plaintiff and F.
3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant and F are jointly and severally liable for the payment of goods to the Plaintiff.
① Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the F waived the business around September 2014, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with the Defendant to whom the Defendant was supplied even around May and June 2014, which was the previous one, and the Defendant affixed the seal on the said tax invoice.
② On August 2014 and September 2014, the Defendant remitted part of the price for the transaction of goods to the Plaintiff.
(3) G shall have only one employee C.