beta
Text
1. Defendant C and D shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 36,935,260 on the Plaintiff and as a result, from March 2, 2019 to November 8, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From May 9, 2015 to November 24, 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff, who manufactures and sells plastic products, etc. with the trade name of E, supplied the products equivalent to the aggregate of KRW 68,554,840 to the F, which was registered and operated under the name of Defendant C, Defendant C, as Defendant D, and received the supply of the products equivalent to the aggregate of KRW 6,789,000 from F until March 6, 2016, and received the payment for the goods amounting to KRW 24,830,580.
B. Defendant C sold all of the machinery used in F on October 6, 2015 to Defendant B, who had worked as F’s factory site. Defendant B leased a factory located in Daegu-gun G on October 6, 2015, and registered his/her business with H on October 16, 2015, and thereafter, he/she is running an unfating production business using the said machinery.
C. Defendant C and D discontinued the F on November 4, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 7 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. When the Plaintiff supplied the products to the Plaintiff F, the Defendant C was the actual management owner, the Defendant D lent the name of the business owner, and the Defendant B was the head of the factory.
Defendant C and B have continued to operate the business by changing only the name of the business operator to Defendant B and using the machinery used by F, after deceiving the Plaintiff and making a delayed payment for the goods, and closing the F.
The defendants' act was committed with the intention of not paying the price of goods from the beginning and constitutes a tort. The defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the amount of the unpaid goods as joint tortfeasor.
Furthermore, Defendant D is obligated to compensate for the above damage with Defendant C and B as the nominal lender.
B. At the time of the supply by Defendant B to F, Defendant B was only an employee of F, and the transaction between the Plaintiff and Defendant C is the Defendant, and thus, the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C.