beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s representative director C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) is the Plaintiff’s representative director
(2) On or around December 14, 2012, the term “D” and “the Defendant shall be deemed to be the “instant goods supply contract” with the content that “the Defendant shall bear the penalty for delay equivalent to 1.5/1,000 of the daily contract amount per the number of delayed days in the event that the supply is delayed after the supply of the second class equipment equivalent to KRW 21,98 million from December 14, 2012 to June 30, 2013.
(2) The non-party company is obligated to pay compensation for delay stipulated in the contract of this case within the scope of interest rate prescribed in the Interest Limitation Act from July 1, 2013 to the date following the due date of delivery, which is 200 million won for the above contract of this case, and the non-party company has the obligation to pay to the non-party company the above contract of this case with 14,824 km amounting to 77,084,80 won and the compensation for delay is not paid.2) The non-party company has the obligation to pay to the non-party company the above contract of this case with 14,824 km amounting to 77,084,80 won before entering into the contract of this case.
3) On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff received from the non-party company the claim for the amount of goods and refund amount as indicated in the above paragraphs (1) and (2) and notified the non-party company of the assignment of claims around August 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of goods as indicated in the above paragraphs (1) and (2). 4) The Defendant asserted that he did not have entered into a contract for the supply of goods with the non-party company. However, the Defendant borrowed the name to E or F by registering the business in the name of “D,” and the Plaintiff concluded a contract for the supply of goods in trust and concluded a contract for the supply of goods and supplied goods.