beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 73,953,00 as well as 10.0 per annum from August 17, 2014 to November 18, 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) entered into an agency contract with the effect that “the Plaintiff shall supply mobile phones, etc. to the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company shall pay the price within 60 days from the delivery date of the goods, and, if delayed, pay the price at the rate of 10.56% per annum.” On the same day, the Defendant B guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation with respect to the Plaintiff on the same day.
B. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant Company with a cell phone equivalent to KRW 78,320,000.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 73,953,00,000 calculated by deducting KRW 4,367,00,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff, from the mobile phone purchase price of KRW 78,320,000, and to the Plaintiff, the agreed delay damages calculated at the rate of 10.56% per annum from August 17, 2014, which is the day following the 60th day from the delivery date of the goods, until November 18, 2014, which is the delivery date of the complaint in this case, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day
B. The Defendants’ assertion 1A) The set-off claim against the sales commission claim against panty house and the Defendant Company received sales commission from panty house Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “panty house”). The sales commission claim against panty house amounting to KRW 150,800,000, but it was not paid due to the failure of panty house.
However, the transaction of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant company as a distribution subsidiary of the panty house established by the plaintiff panty, and the transaction of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant company began at the request of the panty house around April 2012, the transaction relation between the plaintiff and the defendant company is one of the trades between panty house and the defendant