물품대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. Case issues and citing the judgment of the court of first instance
A. The key issue of the instant case is whether a person liable to pay goods to the Plaintiff is the Defendant or C.
As to this, the first instance court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff delivered the said steel product to C’s factory; (b) C used the said steel product; and (c) upon C’s request, D paid a total of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, but it is insufficient to recognize that the above recognized facts and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that C, not the Defendant, but the Defendant, and C agreed to pay the price for the goods; (c) in light of the testimony of the witness E and C of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have supplied the steel product to the Defendant according to the Defendant’s order; and even if C and the Defendant agreed to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff, it is merely an agreement between C and the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be asserted that
B. Furthermore, the witness of the first instance trial testified to the effect that “in Korea, the person who used the above steel products, and the person who used the steel products, should pay the price,” but on the other hand, C testified to the effect that “the plaintiff ordered and delivered the steel products on the part of the defendant, and the price for the goods was known to be received from the defendant.” The contents of C’s testimony in front of the defendant seems to be merely that the defendant had the duty to pay the price for the goods.
C. Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” under Section 5 of the judgment of the first instance as “Defendant”; and (b) other than the part additionally determined, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance; and (c) thereby, it is cited by the main sentence of Article
2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion.