beta
Text
1. Defendant D’s KRW 64,717,40, and as to the Plaintiff, KRW 5% per annum from March 12, 2014 to August 27, 2014, and the following.
Reasons
The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion is a company engaged in the manufacturing and assembly of steel structures. Defendant B is a person who runs the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “E,” Defendant C is the actual operator of the above E, and Defendant D is a person who runs the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “F.”
① The Plaintiff supplied Defendant B and C with an aggregate of KRW 160,472,200 during the period from July 14, 201 to December 9, 2011. However, the Plaintiff received only KRW 27,351,291 among them, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the outstanding amount of KRW 149,168,129 and the delay damages therefrom (the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the outstanding amount of KRW 149,168,129 and the delay damages thereof (the Plaintiff’s certificate of measurement (Evidence 3) with respect to the Defendants, and seeks the difference between the outstanding scrap metal price and the actual sales price). The Plaintiff supplied Defendant D with an aggregate of KRW 607,481,248 and June 14, 2013, but the Plaintiff received the outstanding amount of KRW 2536,291,296,3756,296,297,296,25.
(2) The price of the scrap metal supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendants is less than half or 1/3 of the scrap metal market at the time, and is less than half or less than half of the scrap metal market at the time. This is a juristic act of which the Defendants manifestly lose fairness using the Plaintiff’s path and rush, and is null and void pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act.
In addition, Defendant C purchased scrap metal from the Plaintiff as above by coercioning the Plaintiff’s employee I, etc. while H, a representative director G, caused damage to himself/herself due to the past bankruptcy. This constitutes a declaration of intention by coercion under Article 110 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes the declaration of intention by coercion under Article 110 of the Civil Act, and thus, on August 7, 2014.