물품대금
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 16,50,000 as well as to the plaintiff on February 8, 2019.
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff, who engages in the Plaintiff’s assertion-based Mebling-type and sales business, sold each of the following: (a) the Defendant, who engages in the same kind of business; (b) the Mebing-type Meb-type Meb-type Meb-type Meb-type Meb-type Meb-type Meb-type Meb-type Meb-type 10,700,000 on May 21, 2017 (110,000,000 per unit price); (c) the Meb-type Meb-type Meb-type Meb-type Meb-type Meb-type (90,000,000 won per unit price) on July 18, 2017 (150,000,000 won per unit price) on May 20, 2018.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 26,00,000 (= KRW 7,700,000) and the delayed payment amount of KRW 12,00,000).
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The other party to the transaction on May 21, 2017, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is not the Defendant, but D. The Defendant is merely a transport of the frys purchased from the Plaintiff on the said date to D with the Defendant’s transportation vehicle, along with the son E. (2) The Defendant purchased the frys from the Plaintiff on July 18, 2017 and May 20, 2018. However, the volume and unit price of the transaction on July 18, 2017 and May 20, 2018 asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be recognized.
3. However, although the Defendant did not grasp the respective volume and unit price of the transaction as of July 18, 2017 and May 20, 2018, the total volume of the transaction as of July 18, 2017 and May 20, 2018 is about 250,000 in total, and the total amount of the transaction as of May 20, 2018 is about 16,50,000 won in total, and recognizes the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay such amount to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. On May 21, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the purchase price of goods in the transaction as of May 21, 2017 is examined as to whether the buyer of the transaction on May 21, 2017 was the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff. (2) According to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, D, in telephone conversations with the Plaintiff on July 23, 2019, he received not only KRW 110,00 from the Defendant, but also KRW 90,00,00 from the Defendant.
The plaintiff is not based on the value of the above values, but based on the defendant.