beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 132,00,000 and Defendant B from June 11, 2019.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On April 19, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods equivalent to KRW 132,000,000 to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (former trade name: E Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant Company”).
B. On June 10, 2019, as of June 10, 2019, Defendant Company prepared a statement of performance that confirmed the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the goods amounting to KRW 132,00,000 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant statement of performance”) and signed it as a joint and several surety, the representative director of Defendant Company, C and D.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant company supplied goods from the plaintiff and did not pay the price for them. Since the defendant D and C are jointly and severally guaranteed them, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 132,000,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 11, 2019 to February 26, 2020 as the day following the completion date of the execution letter of this case, as the plaintiff sought against the plaintiff. The defendant corporation from June 11, 2019 to February 26, 2020; the defendant C and the defendant D are 6% per annum as stipulated in each Commercial Act until April 23, 2020; and each of them is fully paid.
B. On the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants did not receive goods from the Plaintiff, but did not have an obligation to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff, since they supplied goods from F and paid the price for the goods to F.
In addition to the contents of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the facts that the quantity of the goods supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the quantity of the goods supply contract concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant are partially consistent, and the representative director of the Plaintiff Company seems to have worked in F.