beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,242,100 and annual interest thereon from August 3, 2016 to August 10, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a company whose purpose is the food materials manufacturing business, and the defendant operates a restaurant with the trade name "C".
B. From April 7, 2015 to August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied food materials to the Defendant. The Plaintiff received only KRW 305,551,410 from April 16, 2015 to July 23, 2016, among the above food materials cost of KRW 340,793,510, the Plaintiff received only KRW 305,551,410 from the Defendant, and did not receive the remainder of KRW 35,242,10.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 35,242,100 won for the remaining goods and damages for delay according to each ratio of 6% per annum from August 3, 2016 to August 10, 2016 (the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order), and from the next day to the day of full payment (the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order), to the day of full payment.
B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant asserts that D and D, the representative director of the plaintiff company, D and D, the defendant's fraud, made an investment in kind in the kind of food materials, so they do not have an obligation to pay the price for the goods to the plaintiff. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that E and D operated as a partnership with E and D as a partner, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's argument is rejected. 2) Even if the defendant is liable to pay the price for the goods, D did not distribute profits to E, and E did not return the amount of shares at the time of withdrawal from the association, and E did not return the amount of shares at the time of withdrawal from the association, and therefore, E and D cannot be deemed to have operated a partnership, and therefore, the defendant's argument seeking the distribution of profits, etc. is further needed.