beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 26,697,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 20% per annum from June 25, 2015 to September 30, 2015.
Reasons
1. The part of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B was operated by the active fish-sale company “E” in Tong Young-si, and from around 2012 to December 2013, 2013, the Defendant B supplied active terms, such as ju, ju, ju, ju, ju, and farming fishing, to the Defendant B, who operated the active fish-sale company “F” (hereinafter “F”). The fact that Defendant B did not pay KRW 26,697,00 out of the price of the goods to the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and the Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff the price of the goods, KRW 26,697,000, and the delay damages therefrom.
2. The part of the claim against the defendant C
A. As to whether there was an agreement to assume the obligation to pay the price of goods, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C should pay the price of goods in accordance with the said agreement, since the Plaintiff agreed to pay the price of goods jointly with the Defendant B.
However, there was no disposition document between the plaintiff and the defendant C that there was no direct transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant C, and that the defendant C jointly pays the purchase-price obligation of the defendant C.
As seen in the foregoing paragraph, it is difficult to view Defendant C as the assignee of F’s business from Defendant B. In light of the fact that the personal arrangement to bear the obligation of Defendant B is an exceptional, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant C agreed with the Plaintiff to pay the goods price liability jointly and severally with the Plaintiff solely on the statement of evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C is a transferee of the entire business of F from Defendant B, and is obligated to repay the price of the goods.
However, in full view of the respective descriptions and arguments of the evidence Nos. 1 and 8, Defendant B would transfer the assets of Defendant C and Mana F on December 18, 2013.