beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, as to KRW 36,365,130, and each of the said money, from February 20, 2018.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B to sell goods, such as miscarriages, from June 2014 to December 2, 2014, regarding the claim against Defendant B, and the fact that goods equivalent to the total amount of KRW 71,331,730 have been delivered to Defendant B during the said period does not conflict between the parties.
Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total purchase price of KRW 71,331,730 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 20, 2018 to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
2. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C to sell goods, such as tea 12% from September 2014 to June 2015, with respect to the determination of the claim against Defendant C, and during the above period, there is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the goods equivalent to the total amount of KRW 36,365,130 are delivered to Defendant C.
Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total purchase price of KRW 36,365,130 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 20, 2018 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D
A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 382,919,482 (the total value added tax amount of KRW 348,108,620,620, total value added tax amount of KRW 34,810,862) by supplying goods to F, operated under the name of E from March 2012 to November 201, and supplying goods, such as chemical drugs, equivalent to the total amount of KRW 261,442,560, and releasing the actual value of the goods supplied. The Plaintiff agreed to receive the amount of money calculated by adding the amount of money calculated by adding the amount of the goods actually supplied to G by issuing a false tax invoice as above (However, it seems that the Plaintiff agreed to the effect that the amount of goods added by falsity was a condition that the Plaintiff would again be paid to G.
. However, there is a difference between the parties.