beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff to pay KRW 109,631,970 to the Plaintiff and the period from June 3, 2016 to October 13, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs a wholesale and retail business for the sale of valves and piping materials. Around July 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to supply valves and piping materials to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”).
B. On July 25, 2014, Defendant B and Defendant C made and provided a letter of representation for material price that “Defendant A would pay in lieu of Defendant B” to the Plaintiff on the part of Defendant A’s joint and several surety obligation to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C made and provided a letter of representation for material price to the same effect as that of July 7, 2016.
C. After July 2014, the Plaintiff supplied materials to Defendant A by June 1, 2016, and the amount of the material price that was not paid as of June 2, 2016 is KRW 109,631,970.
[Ground of recognition] between the Plaintiff, Defendant A, and Defendant C: Confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) and the Defendant B: The fact that no dispute exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment 1) The plaintiff's assertion is the debtor against the defendant A, and the defendant B and the defendant C seek for the payment of material price and damages for delay as the joint and several surety for the plaintiff's above material price liability against the defendant A. In full view of the above facts acknowledged, the defendant A is the principal debtor, and the defendant B and the defendant C are liable to pay the plaintiff's debt as the joint and several surety.
B. The main content of Defendant B’s defenses by Defendant B constitutes a continuous guarantee of an uncertain obligation that may arise in the course of continuous goods transaction relationship between Defendant A and the Plaintiff. In such a case, if the obligee, such as the obligee’s gross negligence, etc., is in breach of the good faith principle, he/she should limit the Plaintiff’s liability to the surety. The Plaintiff’s employees D around May 20, 2016.