beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 55,108,80 and its amount are 6% per annum from August 30, 2015 to May 24, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who sells agricultural products, etc. under the trade name of “D,” and Defendant C is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business of agricultural products under the trade name of “E,” and Defendant B is the mother of Defendant C.
B. From around 2010, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant C with agricultural products, such as kimchi. However, the amount of goods supplied to Defendant C by May 23, 2013, which was not paid, reaches KRW 5,108,800.
C. From May 7, 2011, Defendant B registered his/her business with the trade name “F” and lent the said name to Defendant C so that Defendant C may be supplied with goods in the name of “F” from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff imported kimchi, etc. in the name of F from August 7, 201 to March 2012 and supplied it to Defendant C.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, entry of Eul evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 2, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. According to the above facts finding as to the price of goods, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 55,108,800 payable to the Plaintiff as well as damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 30, 2015 to May 24, 2016, which is the date of this sentencing, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, as sought by the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C is obligated to pay the above amount because it embezzled without paying it to the Plaintiff even after receiving KRW 10,294,000 for the Plaintiff’s goods from Gmate and H Et, which is the Plaintiff’s business partner. However, each of the items of evidence Nos. 1-1 and 5-1-1 through 11 is insufficient to recognize the above fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.
3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The plaintiff's assertion is that defendant B is the defendant C-A.