물품대금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant is a corporation established for chain business on March 26, 2008 and its incidental business, food service business, etc., and runs a divisional franchise business in the name of “B.”
The Plaintiff supplied food materials (hereinafter “food materials, such as net bags and pigs,”) to the affiliated stores of “B” from June 2010 to November 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant’s affiliated stores”) according to the terms and conditions set by the Defendant, but was not paid KRW 155,139,421 out of the price.
[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, entry in subparagraph 1 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Claim for the payment of goods;
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff himself/herself entered into a basic contract on the supply of food materials with the defendant around April 2010 and thereafter supplied food materials to the defendant's franchise store through C (hereinafter "C") from November 2013 according to this contract. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 155,139,421 won as a party to a contract on the supply of food materials and delay damages to the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the defendant asserts that "C purchases food materials and delivers them to the defendant's franchise store, and collects the proceeds therefrom," and that C directly purchased food materials to the plaintiff and supplied them to the defendant's franchise store. Thus, the defendant is not the defendant but C is the party who entered into a contract for food materials supply with the plaintiff, and is obligated to pay the amount of the unpaid food materials to the plaintiff as the party who entered into such contract.
B. The question of who the parties to the basic legal doctrine regarding the determination of contractual parties are the parties involved in the contract.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4471 Decided November 29, 2012). In relation to the determination of contractual parties, where both parties agree to agree, the contract is concluded with the same intent.