beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 101,368,755 to the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from May 1, 2016 to April 17, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. During the period from November 4, 2014 to February 28, 2016, Nonparty A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) drafted evidentiary documents on the supply transaction of swine worth KRW 101,368,755 to the Defendant.
B. On July 20, 2017, Nonparty Company was appointed as a bankruptcy trustee by the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017Hahap100137, and Nonparty Company taken over the instant lawsuit filed by Nonparty Company.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment thereon
A. The summary of the assertion ① The non-party company was engaged in the transaction of swine with the non-party C, and there is no fact that the defendant traded the supply of swine with the non-party company.
② Nonparty C’s loans worth KRW 230,000,000, which Nonparty C holds with respect to the non-party company, shall set off the loans to the non-party company to the extent on an equal basis.
B. (1) In full view of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier prior to the existence of the supply of swine scrap, it is sufficiently recognized that the aforementioned transaction was conducted between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the supply of swine scrap.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 101,368,755 won for the transaction of unpaid pigs and damages for delay under the Commercial Act and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings as requested by the plaintiff.
(2) As the Defendant asserts, the Nonparty C guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to pay the transaction price to the Nonparty Company, and the Nonparty C holds the loan claim against the Nonparty Company.
Even if a set-off against the Defendant’s claim for a loan against the Nonparty Company C is not allowed because the set-off against the Defendant’s claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant, which the Plaintiff seeks, is not recognized.