beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 137,408,587 and as a result, from May 24, 2017 to September 1, 2017.
Reasons
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties; or the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and the whole arguments.
From November 21, 2016 to February 8, 2017, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) with goods, such as “FRAE”, but was not reimbursed KRW 142,408,587 as of March 23, 2017.
B. Defendant Company and Defendant C jointly and severally agreed on March 23, 2017 that KRW 48,403,300, out of KRW 142,408,587, and KRW 48,131,052, up to March 31, 2017; and KRW 48,131,052, up to June 30, 2017; and KRW 45,874,235, up to September 30, 2017, the Plaintiff did not implement such agreement.
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 142,408,587 as well as damages for delay, since the Defendants were to have lost the interest under the installment agreement due to the non-payment of the amount in installments.
3. The defendants' assertion and defense are defenses that the defendants paid KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff, and the defendant paid KRW 5,000,000 to the plaintiff on April 1, 2017, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul's evidence No. 2, the defendant paid KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff on April 1, 2017, and it can be acknowledged that the above amount was satisfied to the principal amount of the non-paid goods payment. Accordingly, according to these facts, the principal amount of the non-paid goods payment claim was extinguished within the scope
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the remainder of KRW 137,408,587 and after the due date, as sought by the Plaintiff, and it is reasonable for the Defendants to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation from May 24, 2017, which is the day following the date on which the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served to the Defendants.