beta
Text
1. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: 105,631,240 won to the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from September 1, 2014 to February 6, 2015.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The relevant parties both the Plaintiff and the Defendants have closed their business on August 22, 2014, when the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) was engaged in the wholesale and retail business of electronic parts and electronic devices.
In-house directors C, the representative of Defendant A, and in-house directors D, the representative of Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”), were legally married, and they were divorced around November 2013.
From July 8, 2014 to July 18, 2014, Defendant A, upon receiving an order from ELN (hereinafter “ELNT”) to place goods, such as automobile motherers and control towerers, and requested the Plaintiff to supply the same goods, and was supplied by the Plaintiff as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant goods”). From July 9, 2014 to July 21, 2014, Defendant A supplied goods equivalent to KRW 105,631,240 (including surtax) from the Plaintiff.
On July 22, 2014, Defendant A transferred the said goods to Defendant B, upon receipt of the instant goods from the Plaintiff, around July 22, 2014.
(hereinafter “instant goods transfer contract”). L&T related to LNT, by e-mail, ordered the instant goods to Defendant A, included the Plaintiff’s employee E in the recipient’s list, and directly delivered the said goods from the Plaintiff, and issued a transaction statement and tax invoice in the name of Defendant A.
C, the representative of Defendant A, demanded L&T to issue again tax invoices and transaction specifications in the name of the said goods, and L&T, in its name, issued tax invoices and transaction specifications in the name of Defendant B.
[Reasons for Recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 17 (including each number if there is a serial number), and the purport of the whole argument as a whole, the plaintiff defendant Gap entered into the instant goods transfer contract with defendant Eul while the debt exceeds the debt, which constitutes a fraudulent act.