beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 28,577,100 with respect to the Plaintiff and Defendant A Co., Ltd. from September 1, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C is the father of Defendant B.
C On January 24, 2015, under Defendant B’s name, entered into a construction contract with D (the actual owner is E, and D is E’s son) to supply and demand a 300 million won amount of the cost for the construction project to build a resort pension in the size of 183 square meters on the F and G ground of Seopopo City F and G (hereinafter “instant construction”).
B. Around May 2015, the Plaintiff was requested from C and D to supply ready-mixed at the instant construction site. From May 20, 2015 to August 22, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed equivalent to KRW 32,852,100 in total at the construction site of the instant construction site. Of them, the amount of ready-mixed equivalent to KRW 4,275,000 that D requested direct supply was paid from D, but the remainder of KRW 28,57,100 was not paid.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 11 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B: Judgment on the constructive admission of the nominal lender’s liability under Article 24 of the Commercial Act (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act).
3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A
A. The parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff is the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).
(2) This case’s construction has been permitted under the name of the Defendant Company C by using the name of the Defendant Company. Since the Plaintiff was aware of C as the site manager of the Defendant Company and supplied ready-mixed, the Defendant Company asserted that C was liable for payment of the price for ready-mixed which was not received by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, as a lessee who allowed C to engage in the business using the name of the Defendant Company. 2) As to this, the Defendant Company used the name of the Defendant Company to use the name of the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company did not allow C to carry out the instant construction using the name of the Defendant Company, and even if the Defendant Company lent its name, the Plaintiff