beta
Text
1. Defendant A’s KRW 98,855,970 and its annual rate from October 26, 2012 to June 10, 2015, and the following:
Reasons
1. The fact that Defendant A, who runs a construction business under the trade name of “C” as to the claim against Defendant A, was supplied with goods, such as dysible materials, from July 31, 2012 to October 19 of the same year by the Plaintiff, and the payment of KRW 98,85,970 (hereinafter “the price of the instant goods”) out of the price of the goods is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2.
Therefore, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 98,85,970 won for the unpaid goods and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from October 26, 2012 to June 10, 2015, which was served on the Defendant by the pertinent complaint, from the next day to September 30, 2015, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
(2) The legal interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings”) which reduces the legal interest rate from 20% per annum to 15% per annum under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (this part of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A is dismissed as above). 2.
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B (hereinafter “C”) was also the business owner of the instant goods supplied by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the instant goods in collaboration with Defendant A, and even if Defendant B was not a party to the instant transaction but merely lent the name of the “C” to Defendant A, the Plaintiff did not know that the name was given. Therefore, Defendant B was liable to pay the instant goods to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
B. Therefore, it is reasonable to determine whether Defendant B, the business owner of “C”, is the Plaintiff.