beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 130 million to Nonparty D Co., Ltd.
Around April 2014, when the Plaintiff demanded repayment of the above loan, Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant B had a claim of KRW 100 million against the purchase price of goods and that the Plaintiff had a claim of KRW 100 million.
B. On April 24, 2014, D notified Defendant B of the fact of the above assignment of claims, and the notification was received by Nonparty B’s spouse and the representative director of Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) on the 25th of the same month.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion ① Defendant B had a debt of KRW 100 million to D for the purchase price of goods.
② The Plaintiff acquired the above goods payment obligation from D, and this was notified to Defendant B.
③ Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff.
④ In fact, Defendant B is a private enterprise established by abusing its legal personality with intent to evade Defendant B’s debt, and thus, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable for the debt of Defendant B.
In addition, Defendant Company received all physical and human resources of Defendant B, an individual enterprise of Defendant B, and this constitutes business takeover, and thus, is obligated to repay Defendant B’s obligations to the Plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is premised on the existence of D’s claim for the return of the goods price against Defendant B.
Therefore, in order to recognize the plaintiff's claim against the defendants, the claim for the return of the goods price against the defendant B should exist first.
(b)In accordance with the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the following circumstances are recognized:
At first, the Plaintiff’s total purchase price between D and Defendant B is 190 million.