beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 20,946,750 as well as 6% per annum from October 1, 2014 to July 1, 2015.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the cause of the claim is an individual entrepreneur who runs the Doing and retail business of chemical drugs and fiber yarns with the trade name of “D,” and the Defendants jointly engage in a fiber processing business, such as fibering, with the trade name of “E,” and the Plaintiff supplied the Defendants with booms, etc., and the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 20,946,750 as of September 30, 2014, the fact that the goods price of KRW 20,946,750 was not paid to the Defendants as of September 30, 2014 can be acknowledged either by dispute between the parties or by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the price of the goods unpaid and the damages for delay.
2. The defendants' assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion lies in the defects of Acryle resin, etc., which is a textile processing material supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants, and the Defendants processed it as a raw material and supplied to the non-party Ecryle Co., Ltd. In the end, the damages suffered by F from the final purchase of the products from the said Ecryle Co., Ltd. amounting to KRW 349,760,992. Accordingly, the Defendants and the Ecryle Co., Ltd. were to share the said damages amount with the Defendants and the Ecryle Co., Ltd., thereby compensating the Defendants for KRW 180,000.
Therefore, if the above amount of damages is deducted from the goods price liability of this case, there is no goods price to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.
B. The evidence submitted by the Defendants alone was defective in textile processing materials, such as Acryle resin, supplied to the Defendants. Accordingly, it is insufficient to recognize that there was a defect in the textile products processed and supplied by the Defendants to the Ecryle Island Co., Ltd., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, we cannot accept the defendants' above assertion based on this premise.
(c).