beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 26,500,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 1, 2014 to November 10, 2016, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a person who engages in the sales business of paintings in the name of "E", and the defendant C is a person who engages in the sales business of student uniforms in the name of "F" or "G", and the defendant B is a person who is a business operator of the above "F" with his/her father's father.
B. The Plaintiff supplied original parts to Defendant C from April 12, 2010. The Plaintiff received part of the price of the said goods from the said Defendant, but did not receive 26.5 million won for the remainder of the goods after January 21, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim against Defendant C, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 26.5 million payable to the Plaintiff and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from July 1, 2014 to November 10, 2016, which is the date of the judgment of this case where the dispute is deemed reasonable as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, as the Plaintiff seeks from July 1, 2014 to the date of full payment.
3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. Since Defendant B’s assertion is the business owner of the above “F”, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers), Defendant C stated his trade name as “G” other than “F” at the time when the Plaintiff ordered the Plaintiff or issued a promissory note with respect to the price of the goods, and the Plaintiff stated the above Defendant’s trade name as “G” other than “F” at the time when the Plaintiff sent the certificate of content demanding the payment of the goods in question to Defendant C. The fact that the business owner of “G” is not Defendant B, but Defendant B.