logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.03.04 2019가단108856
약정금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,645,292 as well as 5% per annum from December 31, 2018 to March 4, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, who sells oral components with the trade name of “C”, supplied the oral accessories equivalent to KRW 128,547,447 in total to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) from July 28, 2015 to April 2016. The Plaintiff was not paid KRW 19,645,292 out of the sales proceeds. On April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff established E Co., Ltd. and supplied Nonparty Company 23,618,540 to Nonparty Company, but did not receive the sales proceeds.

B. Upon urging the Plaintiff to pay the unpaid amount, on March 23, 2016, the Defendant, as the representative director of the non-party company, prepared and delivered a written consent for payment of bonds (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the purport that the Plaintiff would pay the outstanding amount to C only when the transaction was discontinued later, and would be legally responsible for the outstanding amount.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 2-1 to 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the outstanding amount of KRW 19,645,292, and damages for delay, which the Non-Party Company bears to the Plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

Even after conversion into a corporate entrepreneur, the Plaintiff operates a corporation as a substantial representative of E, and the Defendant asserts that pursuant to the above agreement, the Plaintiff is also obligated to pay 23,618,540 won of the remainder of the goods price of “E” to the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to find that the Defendant agreed to pay the unpaid goods to Nonparty Company E, and this part of the allegation is without merit.

B. The defendant's decision on the defendant's assertion is that the non-party company's employees have arranged documents at the office under the direction of the non-party company F representative.

arrow