beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 and the Defendants’ aforementioned amount from November 3, 2015.
A. Defendant A.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2:
1) On June 21, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant A Co., Ltd. with the purport that the Plaintiff would supply ready-mixed, and Defendant B and C, on the same day, jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay ready-mixed to the Plaintiff of the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B and C”). According to the above sales contract, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixeds worth KRW 44,200,000 in total from May 20, 2015 to September 8, 2015 at the site of the new construction of Jinjin-gun, Gangnam-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and the Plaintiff was paid only KRW 14,200,000 among them on November 2, 2015.
B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,000,000 (=44,200,000 - 14,200,000) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from November 3, 2015 to the date when the duplicate of the complaint of this case is delivered to the Defendants respectively, as requested by the Plaintiff, from November 3, 2015 to the date when the copy of the complaint of this case is delivered to the Defendants, and from the next day to the date of full payment.
C. As to this, Defendant C asserts that the Defendant A Co., Ltd., which was directly supplied with ready-mixeds by the Plaintiff, is liable to preferentially pay the price of ready-mixeds to the Plaintiff as the primary debtor.
However, as acknowledged earlier, Defendant C is a joint and several surety, not a simple guarantor, and thus, it is not possible to defend the highest search pursuant to the proviso of Article 437 of the Civil Code. Therefore, Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.
2. It is so decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiff's claim on the ground that it is reasonable.