beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 31,60,000 and Defendant A from November 13, 2010 to October 23, 2013.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants, the merchants of the Commercial Act to determine the Plaintiff’s assertion, entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff setting the amount of KRW 31,600,00 in which the Plaintiff would sell to the Defendants by setting the said amount of KRW 31,60,000. The Plaintiff’s delivery of KRW 2,00 to the Defendants on November 12, 2010 according to the said sales contract may be recognized by taking into account the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s delivery of KRW 2,00 to the Defendants on November 12, 201; and (b) the Plaintiff’s submission of KRW 5,00 in the evidence
(2) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 31,60,000 won to the Plaintiff and damages for delay from the day following the due date of payment, barring any special circumstance.
However, since a sales contract is a bilateral contract and the obligations under the bilateral contract are in a concurrent performance relationship, the plaintiff is deemed to have arrived at the maturity date of the obligation to pay the purchase price of the defendants on November 12, 2010, when the plaintiff delivered the temperature of this case to the defendants. Thus, the defendants jointly and severally bear the obligation to pay to the plaintiff the above 31,60,000 won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 13, 2010 to October 23, 2013, when the copy of each complaint of this case is served on the plaintiff from November 13, 2010 to October 23, 2013, the defendant Eul bears the obligation to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 31,60,000 won per annum under the Special Act on the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc. from
2. The defendants' assertion and judgment
A. The Defendants asserted that the buyer of the instant sales is only Defendant B, and that Defendant A is not a party to the sales contract, and that Defendant A is not obligated to pay the sales price pursuant to the instant sales contract.
The plaintiff issued only the defendant B a tax invoice (No. 3) for the sale of this case.