beta
Text
Defendant D shall pay 80,068,800 won to the Plaintiff and 12% per annum from February 4, 2020 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Defendant D’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D with respect to KRW 90,068,80 of the user fee for the Ma’s optical media from October 2016 to April 2017 was jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant D’s debt. Defendant D’s assertion that only KRW 10,000,000 was paid and the remainder of KRW 80,068,80 was not paid, is not clearly disputing, and thus, Defendant D’s confession is deemed to have been made pursuant to Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Therefore, Defendant D is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 80,068,800 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from February 4, 2020 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case.
2. Claim against Defendant C
A. (1) The Plaintiff seeks payment on the ground that Defendant C, who operates an advertising agency with the trade name “E”, used the Plaintiff’s advertising medium and did not pay the user fee of KRW 80,068,80.
(2) According to the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, it is recognized that the Plaintiff engaged in a transaction, as alleged by the Plaintiff, with an individual entrepreneur with the trade name “E,” which was registered as the business owner by Defendant C as the representative of the Plaintiff. In light of the circumstances acknowledged in the following sub-paragraph (2), it is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant C engaged in a transaction with the Plaintiff as the principal agent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
B. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that, as Defendant C permitted Defendant C to use the name of the business owner, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with Defendant D to pay the unpaid transaction price pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
(2) Defendant C permitted Defendant C to use the name of business operator, and Defendant C did not dispute the fact that Defendant C traded with the Plaintiff using the name of Defendant C.