beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,254,640 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 5, 2013 to January 21, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 2012, the Plaintiff, a company selling steel products, etc., supplied steel products to the Defendant who performed construction works for ground accommodation facilities (hereinafter “instant construction works”) at the time of Pakistan. Around May 2012, the Plaintiff received a payment note from the owner of the instant construction works to the effect that the Defendant would repay the said steel products as a joint and several surety if the Defendant delayed the payment of the said steel products.
B. The Plaintiff supplied steel materials to the Defendant by February 5, 2013 in relation to the instant construction project, but was not reimbursed for KRW 21,254,640.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order with the Seoul Southern District Court 2013 tea18579 with the same amount as the instant case against B, a joint and several surety for the said steel payment, and the decision was not raised by B, which became final and conclusive on December 14, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, witness C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is responsible for paying to the plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 21,254,640 for unpaid goods and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 5, 2013 to January 21, 2016, the service date of the payment order decision under the Civil Act, as the plaintiff sought from February 5, 2013, which is the last delivery date.
B. On July 2013, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay for the Plaintiff since the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the goods to the Plaintiff was taken over with the consent of the Plaintiff, the owner of the building, while giving up and accepting the instant construction work even before the lapse of July 2013.
There is no evidence to deem that there was an agreement between the Defendant and B on the assumption of the obligation with respect to the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the goods to the Plaintiff, and there was a assumption of the domestic obligation.
Even if it is unclear whether overlapping acceptance or exemption acceptance is made.