beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 101,111,569 and Defendant B with respect thereto from May 18, 2017, and Defendant C with respect thereto.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff, a general partner and representative member of a limited partnership D (hereinafter “instant corporation”) with the purpose of a chartered bus transportation business, decided to transfer all the shares of the instant corporation owned by the Plaintiff to Defendant B in total amount of KRW 310 million.
B. Upon Defendant B’s failure to pay the transfer price initially agreed upon, on February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer and acquisition of the instant corporation (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendants, with the purport that the Plaintiff will transfer the entire equity shares of the instant corporation, the corporation (all business rights), the business rights, and the entire assets of the instant corporation at KRW 310 million, but the Plaintiff will pay the remainder KRW 260 million by March 20, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from May 18, 2017, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and from June 19, 2017 to the day of full payment under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, as the Plaintiff seeks after the remainder payment of KRW 101,11,569, excluding KRW 208,88,431, which the Plaintiff received from the Defendants, out of the transfer proceeds stipulated in the contract in this case.
B. The Defendants asserted that “The four vehicles owned by the instant legal entity may be loaned as collateral and paid the transfer price to them,” and that the instant contract was concluded with the belief of the horse E, and that the Defendants should be deducted since the occurrence of damages to the Defendants has occurred since one year has passed since the loan was executed. As such, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows.