beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination
A. As to the cause of the claim, on February 7, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of pine trees with Defendant B who borrowed the name from Defendant C (Defendant D’s representative). On May 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of pine trees with Defendant B even in early police officers. The Plaintiff supplied Defendant B with timber equivalent to KRW 189,561,00, and the Defendants confirmed that there was a price for unpaid timber equivalent to KRW 79,397,294 among them through fraud on June 13, 2012. The fact that the Defendants confirmed that there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, or that there was a price for unpaid timber equivalent to KRW 79,397,294 among them through fraud, can be acknowledged by each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, and 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant C, who allowed a transaction by lending the name of Defendant B and Defendant B, is jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid timber amount of KRW 79,397,294 and 15% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 2, 2017 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants returned the unpaid timber corresponding to the unpaid timber price to the Plaintiff by smelling it to F, and that the Plaintiff’s claim for the unpaid timber price has expired by the extinctive prescription. 2) The Defendants approved the obligations by confirming that there was a price for unpaid timber equivalent to KRW 79,397,294 through deceit E on June 13, 2012. As seen earlier, the instant lawsuit was filed on August 24, 2017, five years after the said lawsuit was filed on August 24, 2017 (no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that five years have elapsed by the extinctive prescription of commercial claims against the Plaintiff’s unpaid timber price claim). Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the unpaid timber price was already extinguished by the extinctive prescription prior to the instant lawsuit.
As to this, the Plaintiff shall pay for timber.