beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 19,040,154 as well as 6% per annum from July 11, 2016 to December 14, 2017, and the following:
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From June 9, 2015 to March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied shopping bags, etc. equivalent to KRW 69,651,875 in total to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) from June 9, 2015 to March 31, 2016, and the Plaintiff has not received KRW 19,040,154 among them until now.
B. On July 1, 2016, Defendant C promised to pay the Plaintiff the obligation to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff by July 10, 2016.
[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-6 (including branch numbers, if any); hereinafter the same shall apply)
(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 19,040,154 with respect to the Plaintiff’s goods payment of KRW 19,040,154 with respect to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from July 11, 2016, which is the date following the payment date, to December 14, 2017, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation.
B. (i) The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) was taken over by Nonparty Company’s business, and the Defendant Company decided to take over the obligation to pay for the goods to the Plaintiff by Nonparty Company. As such, the Defendant Company is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above obligation to pay for the goods to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant Company received the business of Nonparty Company solely on the basis of the written evidence Nos. 1 to 10, and the result of the Party’s personal examination against Defendant C.
In addition, even if the defendant company received the business of the non-party company, it is insufficient to recognize that the non-party company took over the non-party company's obligation to pay for the goods to the plaintiff.