beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45,00,000 and the interest rate from February 22, 2020 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the statement Nos. 1 through 4:
1) On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff, a Changho Construction Business Operator, concluded a construction contract with Defendant B for the construction cost of KRW 170,000,00 with the construction cost of metal, windows, and glass in the construction site located in Samsung-si, Young-si (hereinafter “the construction work”).
(2) At the time of Defendant B’s transfer of the name of his father and wife C, Defendant B prepared a subcontract for the instant construction work.
3) Although the Plaintiff completed all of the instant construction work, Defendant B did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 45,00,000 among the construction cost, and on September 27, 2017, Defendant C and Defendant D, the spouse of Defendant C, paid the Plaintiff the said KRW 45,000,000 by December 2017 (hereinafter “instant performance note”).
The seal of the above Defendants was written and sealed, and the Defendant B signed as the surety and delivered it to the Plaintiff.
B. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the payment amount of KRW 45,00,000,000, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from February 22, 2020 to the date of full payment after the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendants, as the Plaintiff seeks.
2. As to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant C and D asserted that they are not liable because they merely lent the name to Defendant B. However, the above Defendants are liable as the nominal lender pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act, and the Plaintiff, the opposite contractual party, did not prove any gross negligence as to the fact that the Plaintiff, who was the opposite contractual party, knew or was negligent. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified.