beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,239,200, and 6% per annum from October 1, 2013 to November 3, 2014, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts as to the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and No. 5.
The Plaintiff is a legal entity that sells alcoholic beverages, and the Defendant is a person who operates the main store with the trade name “B”.
B. On August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 5,000,00 to the Defendant on the condition that alcoholic beverage transactions were conducted, setting the due date as the date of the transaction of alcoholic beverages by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
C. The Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the Defendant from August 13, 2012 to September 13, 2013, and had not been paid KRW 27,239,200 until now.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 32,239,200 won with 6% interest per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from October 1, 2013 to November 3, 2014, and 20% interest per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant's assertion that the nominal lender has lent the name to C, which is the husband, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff should make a claim for liquor payment. However, the defendant's assertion is without merit in light of the fact that the defendant directly prepares a certificate No. 1 (written confirmation) stating that he borrowed KRW 5,00,000 for the purpose of liquor transaction, and Eul's certificate No. 1 (written counterclaim) submitted to the defendant's husband C while filing a divorce lawsuit with the defendant. Even if based on the statement, the defendant had sold the money from time to time and has acted as the actual owner such as virtual owner. Above all, the defendant did not submit evidence that recognizes that the plaintiff was aware of the name lending relationship.
B. The Defendant’s defense of the failure to complete the transaction does not mean that the transaction with the Plaintiff has not yet arrived, but there is no transaction after September 13, 2013.