beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22,192,150 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 21, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From December 26, 2012 to August 31, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied livestock products to Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), the representative director, and as of November 2013, the Plaintiff owned a claim for the amount of KRW 22,192,150.
B. Upon the Plaintiff’s request for payment of the unpaid goods price to B, the Defendant, the representative of B, prepared a written confirmation to the effect that “the Plaintiff promises to pay KRW 22,192,150 to the Plaintiff by April 30, 2014” (hereinafter “instant written confirmation”) on November 29, 2013, and issued it to the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) agreed to pay, instead of delaying the payment date until April 30, 2014, if B fails to pay the price of goods by the said deadline, the Defendant’s payment of the price of goods to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant prepared the instant confirmation document and delivered it to the Plaintiff.
(2) The defendant's assertion of this case is prepared in order for the defendant to confirm the price unpaid to the plaintiff as the representative director of B, when the plaintiff demanded the settlement of the price of the goods.
B. We examine the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by each of the above facts and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, i.e., the plaintiff had completed the settlement of accounts with Eul at the time the transaction with Eul was discontinued on or around August 31, 2013, and thus it seems not necessary to simply require the confirmation document of this case to confirm it. ② The plaintiff demanded the payment of the above goods to Eul, and the defendant is the representative director of Eul, and the above goods price obligation against the plaintiff in order to postpone the payment date of the above goods price.