logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.02.05 2019가단18934
물품대금
Text

1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45,155,165 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from December 14, 2019 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is running a wholesale and retail business of chemical products (PP) with the trade name of “D,” and Defendant B engaged in a furniture manufacturing business with the trade name of “E,” and Defendant C is the wife of Defendant B.

B. From about 10 years prior to Defendant B, the Plaintiff had ordered the Plaintiff to supply the goods ordered by the said Defendant and received the price for the goods. The price for goods not paid by the Defendant B, based on the end of March, 2019, is KRW 45,155,165.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 45,155,165, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from December 14, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case (an original copy of the payment order).

(3) As to the claim against Defendant C on June 1, 2019, the Plaintiff’s interest rate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Specific Cases was changed to 12% per annum, the Plaintiff did not accept the portion of the claim for delay payment that the Plaintiff sought in excess of the above recognition limit). The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C engaged in the household industry with the husband, and that the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B for payment of the unpaid amount of goods 45,155,165 won and delay damages. However, as the Plaintiff submitted, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C engaged in the business with the husband solely on the ground that Defendant C received the Plaintiff’s goods and signed to the Plaintiff’s transaction ledger as alleged by the Plaintiff, as well as the materials submitted by the Plaintiff, and signed to the Plaintiff to confirm the attempted amount of goods (the Defendant C’s assistance to the Defendant’s business).

arrow