beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall jointly and severally with Nonparty B to the Plaintiff KRW 44,695,584 as well as to the Plaintiff from March 15, 2014 to October 31, 2015.
Reasons
1. The facts of reasons for the recognition are as shown in the attached Form;
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 through 8 (including additional numbers), witness C and Eul's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. If an association’s obligation to determine the cause of a claim is to be borne by an act that has been conducted as a commercial activity for all the union members, the joint and several liability should be determined for the said obligation by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act to the union members.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da18638 delivered on August 11, 1995). According to the evidence as seen earlier, Defendant A as a de facto representative, and as the head of the headquarters responsible for practice, Defendant A engaged in the joint operation of the chain business as the head of the headquarters responsible for practice, and Defendant A agreed to assume the responsibility for and complete all obligations arising from the operation of the discussion of “DB” to B around March 31, 2014. As such, Defendant A and B have the nature of commercial activities for all members.
Defendant A, jointly and severally with the Plaintiff, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 4,695,584 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from March 15, 2014 to October 31, 2015, which is the date of the last delivery of the complaint, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. Defendant A’s assertion regarding Defendant A merely participated in the franchise business of “DB” in trust with Party B upon B’s request, and did not enter the business in partnership with Party B. However, the evidence submitted by Defendant A alone lacks to reverse the above facts of recognition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.