beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 46,493,743 and the Defendants B from December 1, 2019 to December 12, 2020.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates steel products distribution and lease business. Defendant B is a registered titleholder of “D” who operates a building business, and Defendant C is a child of Defendant B, who actually operates the said D.
B. On January 9, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant B to sell the sn beam of steel materials necessary to install the warehouse partitions near the Incheon Northern port, and sold total of 63.593 tons per ton at KRW 650,000.
The total proceeds thereby shall be as follows:
C. On October 14, 2019, Defendant B prepared a statement of payment (Evidence A 4) promising to pay KRW 46,493,743 of the above price by November 30, 2019, and Defendant C provided joint and several surety therefor.
(3) Defendant B’s signature and seal in the above statement of payment was forged by Defendant C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and Defendant B appears to have delegated the authority to prepare the above statement of payment in light of the fact that Defendant C delegated the authority to make transactions with the above D under his own name, and thus it is not acceptable. [Evidence: Evidence No. 1 through 6, and the whole purport of oral argument]
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, Defendant B provided steel products from the Plaintiff and promised to pay the price of KRW 46,493,743 to November 30, 2019. Defendant C provided joint and several sureties, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 46,493,743 and delay damages.
B. As to this, Defendant B asserts that, since he only lent his name to Defendant C and performed the above transaction with the Plaintiff, he is the Defendant C, he does not have any obligation to pay the above price.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and according to the above evidence and factual relations, Defendant B recognized that he was in charge of Defendant C as a business registration titleholder, and at the time, Defendant B lent only the name of the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.