beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 353,380,763 and its related amount from December 1, 2014 to October 1, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The price for the goods that the Plaintiff engaged in the textile manufacturing business had not been continuously supplied to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) during the period from around 2011 to November 30, 2014 is KRW 353,380,763.
B. However, on February 26, 2015, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) that had been liable for the goods payment to Defendant B, agreed to be liable if the issue occurred with respect to 200 million won out of the original amount to be paid by Defendant B to the Plaintiff, who is the business partner, to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). [The ground for recognition] / [The ground for recognition / (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act), the non-contentious facts, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. From around 2011 to November 30, 2014, the Plaintiff’s price for the goods that had not been continuously supplied to Defendant B was 353,380,763. However, the fact that Defendant C agreed on February 26, 2015 that Defendant B would be liable for 200 million won out of the total price for the goods that Defendant B would pay to the Plaintiff, the customer, and that Defendant C would be jointly and severally liable for 200 million won. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed 200 million won out of the price for the goods that Defendant B would have supplied to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 353,380,763 won, and the Defendant C would be jointly and severally liable with the Defendant B.
B. As to the assertion by Defendant C, the judgment of this case is not the joint and several liability of Defendant B’s goods payment, but the purport of the instant agreement is to cooperate with Defendant C by paying the goods payment to the Plaintiff as soon as possible, so that Defendant C can repay the goods payment to the Plaintiff as soon as possible. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case cannot be complied with as it fully pays the goods payment to the Plaintiff according to the agreement.
However, the defendant C is the case.