beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to the Defendant A’s KRW 69,149,196 and KRW 7,540,696 from August 1, 2012, and KRW 61,608,500.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of the selective transport business, and the defendant A is a person who operates the plaintiff's C business, and the defendant B is a person who takes over the above C business.
B. On July 30, 2012, Defendant A agreed with the Plaintiff to reimburse KRW 7,540,696, which was not paid to the Plaintiff, and Defendant A’s transportation charge that was not paid to the Plaintiff from July 1, 2013 to March 31, 2015 is KRW 61,608,50.
C. Around July 2014, Defendant B acquired C’s business office and jointly and severally guaranteed the debt incurred while Defendant A operating C’s business office. The debt incurred from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015 is KRW 49,705,122.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 69,149,196 won (7,540,696 won) and 7,540,69 won from August 1, 2012 to 61,608,500 won, from April 1, 2015 to July 25, 2018, the delivery date of the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, and 6% from the following day to the day of full payment. The Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum from July 1, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is 49,705,122 won and damages for delay from the day of the following day to the day of full payment. From July 1, 2015 to the day of the application for change of the purport of the claim in this case and the cause of the lawsuit.
B. The Defendants asserted to the effect that they fully repaid the transport fee to the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.