(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.11.26 2020가단19759

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.11.26 2020가단19759

보증채무금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 32,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from September 22, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Although there is no dispute between the parties or according to Gap evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the plaintiff engaged in manufacturing and wholesale business of steel products, etc. supplied pipes, etc. from April 2016 to April 11, 2019 with the trade name of "C", to non-party D engaged in construction business and manufacturing business, etc., and D did not pay the price of goods from May 2, 2018. Accordingly, D confirmed that the price of goods unpaid to the plaintiff was total 37,042,427 won (principal principal) and prepared a confirmation document confirming the payment of the price of goods unpaid to the plaintiff on three occasions (1st,042,427 won (20.72), 2nd, 16,000 won (2nd, 200, 2005.36, 205.4 billion won) and the fact that D paid the price of goods to the plaintiff on three occasions (3rd, 2005, 205.4).

B. According to the above facts, the defendant, as a joint guarantor, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 32,00,000 won for the unpaid goods of D (=37,042,427 won - 5,042,427 won) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 22, 2020 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the service of the original copy of the instant payment order.

2. As to the judgment on the defendant's assertion, since C was supplied with goods from the plaintiff, the duty to pay the price for the goods is limited to C, which is the party to the transaction, and the defendant merely confirmed the schedule for the payment of the company to the plaintiff as its executive officers, and thus, the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable. However, the defendant's joint and several guarantee of the defendant's obligation to pay the price for the goods unpaid to the plaintiff of D (C) is the same as seen earlier. Therefore, the prior argument

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2015.11.13 2015가단7022

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.25 2015가단134253

-창원지방법원 2019.06.13 2019가합50161

-수원지방법원 2020.04.23 2019가단28085

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.17 2019가단5304823