beta
Text
1. Defendant A and B jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 214,635,00,00 as well as the full payment from January 7, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) referred to as the head of the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”); and (b) entered into a supply contract with Defendant B who represented Defendant A (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).
B. Since February 19, 2014 to April 9, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied 228,635,000 ploss equivalent to the market price of E located in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in E in the period from February 19 to April 9, 2014.
C. The Plaintiff received KRW 8 million on March 21, 2014, and KRW 6 million on March 31, 2014, and KRW 6 million on March 31, 2014, among the supply price of smuggling, and the promissory notes and the number of units in the name of the Defendant A received as payment for some smuggling supply was all rejected or defaulted.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against Defendant A, Defendant A is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid price of 214,635,000 won (228,635,000 won - 14 million won) under the supply contract of this case and the delay damages therefor, and Defendant B’s employer is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the following in the course of its business affairs in relation to the supply contract of this case.
The plaintiff is responsible for compensating for damages equivalent to the amount of accrued smuggling, such as the statement in the port.
B. 1) Claim against Defendant B, even though he is supplied with the marking powder of the claim, there is a duty to pay for damages equivalent to KRW 214,635,00,00 for the remaining smuggling, since he/she falsely speaks as if he/she would pay the price of the smuggling even though he/she did not have the ability or intent to pay the price of the smuggling, and thereby, he/she was committed a tort by deceiving the above smuggling by deceiving the Plaintiff by failing to pay the price of the smuggling, and thus, he/she has the obligation to pay the above amount of the price of the smuggling to the Plaintiff as the compensation for damages.
C. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant C.