beta
Text
1. Defendant B and C jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 24,302,287 as well as 6% per annum from January 1, 2013 to July 7, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination as to claims against Defendant B and C
A. The Defendant B and C, which the Plaintiff jointly operated the “D”, supplied a warranty doping, etc., and the unpaid amount until November 29, 2012 was KRW 24,302,287. The Defendants agreed to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 24,302,287 to the Plaintiff by the end of 2012. As such, the said Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 24,302,287 and the delay damages therefrom.
(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
C. Pursuant to Article 3(1) main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015; effective October 1, 2015) and Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the same Act, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of damages for delay exceeding the rate of 15% per annum from October 1, 2015, among the Plaintiff’s claim, is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant A had the obligation to pay the unpaid goods to the Plaintiff on the ground that Defendant A had been supplied with the Oralping, etc. from the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff himself/herself was the business titleholder of Defendant A, and the business titleholder of Defendant B was changed, and the substantial representative of the aforementioned “D” was the Defendant C, the husband of Defendant B. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant A was the Defendant C, the Plaintiff was the husband of Defendant B, the Plaintiff supplied the goods to Defendant A by itself.
It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant A agreed to pay the unpaid goods of “D”, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion against Defendant A is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B and C is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.