유류대금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On June 2012, the Plaintiff supplied oil equivalent to KRW 4,179,095 to the Defendant-owned vehicle at the Sejong District Oil Station, the Plaintiff’s branch office, and the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above oil price of KRW 4,179,095 and the delay damages therefor. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the other party who entered into an oil supply contract with the Plaintiff was not a stock company B (hereinafter “B”), and that the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the said oil price to the Plaintiff.
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, around June 2012, the plaintiff supplied oil to the motor vehicle owned by the defendant at the tax station 2, which is the plaintiff's branch office. The plaintiff is recognized as having issued electronic tax invoices of 4,179,095 on June 30, 2012. Meanwhile, the plaintiff and the defendant were aware of the whole purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including serial numbers). In other words, on March 1, 2012, the defendant and Eul concluded a subcontract with the condition that the plaintiff will pay the plaintiff for transportation expenses after deducting the oil supply expenses from the gas station B and repair expenses. In light of the fact that the plaintiff was supplied with the oil from the plaintiff under the above contract, the plaintiff was notified that the plaintiff was supplied with the oil supply expenses, and the plaintiff was supplied with the oil from the plaintiff and the plaintiff, who was actually supplied with the oil.