beta
Text
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 25,00,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from March 27, 2015 to May 21, 2015.
Reasons
1. Under the trade name of “F,” the Plaintiff supplied goods to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) by February 2013, while engaging in wholesale and retail business, and around January 29, 2014, the unpaid goods amounting to KRW 44,00,000.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. As to the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Company is obligated to pay KRW 44,00,000 for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 44,00,000 for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff. As seen earlier, around January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to reduce the amount of KRW 19,00,000 for the goods unpaid to the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company on January 29, 2014. However, according to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff agreed to reduce the amount of KRW 44,00,00 for the goods unpaid to the Defendant Company on January 29, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit only for KRW 25,00,000,00 for the remaining 25,000.
B. As to Defendant C, D, and E, the Plaintiff asserts that the said Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the price of the goods not paid by the Defendant Company as the parties to the goods supply contract, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said Defendants were supplied with the goods by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
(2) The Plaintiff is the representative director of the Defendant Company, Defendant C is the person of Defendant C as the director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant C is the wife of Defendant C as the auditor of the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company has already been punished as a mere tool of the said Defendants, and has the form of an external form of a legal entity. However, in substance, it is identical to that of an individual business place, and the said Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the goods. Thus, the Defendants asserted that they are obligated to pay the goods jointly with the Defendant Company, as alleged by the Plaintiff.