beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70,769,563 as well as 12% per annum from February 15, 2020 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B
A. 1) The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “D,” goods such as lectures, water pumps, etc. (hereinafter “instant goods”) between Defendant B and Defendant B who runs the construction business.
(2) Defendant B entered into a contract to supply the instant goods to Defendant B from January 2017 to December 2018 under the said contract. Defendant B did not pay the remainder of KRW 70,769,563 out of the price of the instant goods generated during the supply period to the Plaintiff.
[Evidence Evidence: Statement of Confession No. 1, No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5]
B. According to the above facts of determination, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum from February 15, 2020 to the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff after the final supply date of the remaining goods price of KRW 70,769,563 and damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc.
2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) First, the plaintiff asserts as follows. In other words, since the defendant C continued to use his trade name by taking over the customer, employee, telephone number, and facsimile numbers from the defendant B, the defendant C is jointly and severally liable with the defendant B to pay the remainder of the goods price of KRW 70,769,563 pursuant to Article 42 (1) of the Commercial Act (Liability of the assignee who is in charge of the trade name). However, the plaintiff's assertion is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion only with the descriptions of the evidence No. 2 and No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiff's assertion is not acceptable. 2) In addition, the plaintiff's assertion is not acceptable in the process of opening a new workplace with the intent of the defendant B and the defendant B to evade his obligations to the plaintiff.