beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 200,000,00 and 5% per annum from May 1, 2018 to March 27, 2019.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On July 18, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to deliver 500,00 organic home sets to Defendant B at KRW 400,000 per unit (total amount of KRW 200,000,000) and delivered all of them. (2) Defendant C assumed the obligation to pay the above goods on February 12, 2018.
3) Defendant D Co., Ltd. guaranteed the payment of the above obligation to pay the above goods. [In accordance with the grounds for recognition, Defendant D Co., Ltd., the entire purport of the arguments and entries in the evidence No. 1-1 to No. 3, and the whole purport of the arguments: Confession
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of KRW 200,000,000 to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
The plaintiff's assertion is justified.
2. Determination as to Defendant B and C’s assertion
A. Defendant B1) The above Defendant asserts that, as Defendant C exempted the obligation to pay the above goods, it has been discharged from liability. 2) In the meantime, Article 454 of the Civil Act provides that, in the case of a third party’s assumption of an obligation with the obligation by taking over the obligation according to a contract with the obligor and discharging the obligor’s obligation, it takes effect against the obligee only with the consent of the obligee. Thus, in the absence of the obligee’s consent, even if the obligor and the underwriter agree on the assumption of an obligation with the obligation, the acquisition of the obligation, etc. cannot be effective and the obligor cannot be exempted from the obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da88303, May 24, 2012). There is no evidence to deem that
Rather, according to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C may recognize the fact that they prepared a written confirmation of the takeover of the obligation (Article 3(2) of the Evidence No. 3), including the content that “Defendant C shall be liable until the repayment is made with Defendant B” on February 12, 2018. Thus, Defendant C appears to have jointly assumed the obligation.
We cannot accept this part of Defendant B’s assertion.
(b) the defendant.