beta
Text
1. In the case of Defendant 1:
A. 4,081,000 won for the distribution of Ssung Co., Ltd. and as to this,
B. The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff’s distribution of Masung supplied an administrative work to the Defendant Seosung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ssung”) from October 4, 2016 to October 8, 2016, but did not receive KRW 4,081,000.
B. From October 4, 2016 to the 8th day of the same month, the Plaintiff’s two cancer department supplied agricultural products to the Defendant Non-indicted 11,005,000 won.
C. The Plaintiff’s Green Help supplied agricultural products to the Defendant Seosung from September 19, 2016 to October 1, 2016, but was not paid KRW 7,407,50 out of the price.
Plaintiff
The distribution from April 2014 to October 1, 2016 supplied agricultural products to Defendant Bohyeong, but it has not received KRW 5,397,000 out of the price.
【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 6; Eul evidence 1 through 3; Eul evidence 6 and 7 (including paper numbers); the purport of the whole pleadings)
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim against the Defendant Non-Indicted 1, the Defendant Non-Indicted 4,081,000 won, the Plaintiff Non-Indicted 11,005,000 won for the Plaintiff Non-Indicted 2, and the Plaintiff Non-Indicted 2, and the Plaintiff Non-Indicted 2, and the Non-Indicted 3,07,50 won for the above 7,407,50 won, and damages for delay are to be paid to the Plaintiff Non-Indicted 2, and each of them.
(2) Defendant No. 3,65,00 won was claimed by Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 8, and Defendant No. 9 (including the serial number). However, Defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 3, and Defendant No. 3, Defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 3, and Defendant No. 3, Defendant No. 2, and Defendant No. 3,
(B) Next, the Defendant Newcom entered into an agreement with the Defendants A, B, and the Plaintiffs to guarantee the rate of interest of the Defendant’s Newcom, at least 25%, while engaging in the transaction of goods. In fact, the profit rate was not reached as a result of the transaction of goods, and the Defendant Newcom, as above.