beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacturing of the panel. The Plaintiff entered into a contract to supply the board to D (E; hereinafter the same shall apply) who was awarded a contract for the construction of the steel frame and the establishment of the board to C (E; hereinafter the same shall apply) who was awarded a contract by the Defendant, and supplied the board equivalent to KRW 16,391,650 from April 21, 2017 to May 30, 2017.
B. On June 5, 2017, the Defendant prepared and issued a written confirmation (hereinafter “instant written confirmation”) stating that “If D does not pay D the price to the Plaintiff by June 30, 2017, the Defendant himself/herself as the principal of the payment guarantor of the project owner would promise to pay the price by July 3, 2017” to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant undertaking”). C.
The plaintiff was not paid KRW 11,425,518 out of the amount of the above panel.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts acknowledged before the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 11,425,518, and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.
B. The defendant's assertion 1) asserts that the obligation of this case constitutes a juristic act of which fairness has been considerably lost due to the defendant's poverty, rashness, and inexperience, and thus, is null and void pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act. Contrary to the defendant's assertion, even if the defendant was a female student in 1953 and only graduated from an elementary school, it is not recognized as a matter of course that the defendant was engaged in the business with the trade name "F", but rather, it is difficult to view that the defendant was engaged in the business with the trade name "F" (see subparagraph 1, e.g., evidence 1) and it is deemed that the act of guaranteeing the subcontractor's obligation as the owner is a special unfair juristic act.