logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.10.14 2015가단12177
물품대금
Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 28,526,130 as well as the interest rate from June 2, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

As of December 20, 2014, the price for the goods that the Plaintiff was not supplied to Defendant A Co., Ltd. is 28,526,130, and as of December 20, 2014, Defendant B is the representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd., and Defendant B is the representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd., and on December 20, 2014, indicated the name, address and resident registration number of the Plaintiff and delivered them to the Plaintiff after signing a letter to the effect that “28,526,130 won of the price for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff is confirmed to be paid by us,” and the Plaintiff continued to pay the said goods to the Defendants after the delivery of the goods. The fact that the Plaintiff continued to notify the payment of the said goods to the Defendants before the filing of the lawsuit in this case is either a dispute between the parties,

According to the above facts, Defendant A Co., Ltd. is obligated to pay the remaining goods to the Plaintiff with the goods supplied by the Plaintiff, and in light of the contents of the above confirmation and the fact that Defendant B entered the name, address and resident registration number of the Plaintiff in the above confirmation, etc., Defendant B is deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay the goods to the Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant A Co., Ltd. is liable to pay the

(2) Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 2, 2015 to the date following the day when the copy of the complaint in this case was served to the Defendants as requested by the Plaintiff, as well as from June 2, 2015 to the day when the copy of the complaint in this case was served to the Defendants.

Therefore, each claim against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is justified.

arrow