beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 8,108,801 won and 6% per annum from June 1, 2012 to December 5, 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff operates a gas station selling oil. The Defendants are constructors, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for continuous supply of oil to the Defendants (hereinafter “instant oil supply contract”) around 2009, and supplied oil to the Defendants by May 2012 under the said contract.
B. The Plaintiff claimed the amount of oil supply under the above contract to the Defendants, and the portion of the amount of oil supply claimed as such, which the Defendants did not pay to the Plaintiff, is KRW 30,00,000 for May 201, KRW 66,334,455 for April 201, and KRW 66,971,546 for May 201.
C. On May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5,00,000 as the offense of violating the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, under which he/she manufactured and sold approximately 1,800 liters of fake petroleum products with the market price of KRW 3,202,200,000, on January 31, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion Defendants are practically one business entity run by F, and bear the obligation to pay the price under the instant oil supply contract. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the oil supply price of KRW 163,306,001, and the delay damages therefor.
B. The Defendants’ assertion 1) continued to supply pseudo petroleum without normal supply of oil under the instant oil supply contract to the Plaintiff. Since such supply of pseudo petroleum constitutes an act that violates good customs and other social order, this case’s oil supply contract is null and void. Accordingly, the Defendants are not obligated to return the oil supply price to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the instant oil supply contract is not null and void, pseudo petroleum is not provided by the Defendants. Thus, the Plaintiff is not provided by the instant oil supply contract.