beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 80,128,028 and the interest rate of KRW 5% per annum from October 9, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff, a representative director, is the B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).
B) On September 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) provided steel products to B; and (b) provided steel products to B; (c) concluded a contract to pay the Plaintiff a substitute pay; and (d) subsequently, the Defendant prepared a “written confirmation of accounts payable for the steel contract” with the purport that the Plaintiff is KRW 80,128,028, and on the same day, “B is the representative director of the Plaintiff and the joint and several surety for the payment of the purchase price for the steel contract to the Plaintiff, who is a joint and several surety for the payment of the purchase price for the steel contract by October 8, 2014” (hereinafter “each of the instant agreements”).
[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant may be deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of KRW 80,128,028 to the plaintiff in this case by preparing the letter of this case. Therefore, the defendant shall be liable to pay to the plaintiff 80,128,028 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from October 9, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the due date, to the day of full payment.
2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant cannot pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff without the permission of the court as the Seoul Central District Court 2010dan114 commenced the individual rehabilitation procedure and the rehabilitation procedure is under way.
However, since the Plaintiff’s claim under each of the instant agreements is a claim that occurred after the decision to commence the individual rehabilitation procedure and is not entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors, the Plaintiff is able to enforce compulsory execution with repayment without resorting to the court’s permission or repayment plan. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion to the different purport
3. The plaintiff's claim is justified.