손해배상금
1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the representative who runs the “C.” and the “C.” (hereinafter “C”) at the Chinese Sincheon (Senzen), and the Defendant is a person who runs the wholesale and retail business of LE chips under the trade name of “D.”
B. On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to exclusively supply LG chips produced by the Defendant for one year (hereinafter “instant contract”) under the name of C, and paid the Defendant the down payment KRW 100 million on the same day.
C. On October 4, 2012, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff’s LPE chips to the Plaintiff’s side, and received the amount of KRW 200 million as the price for the police officer around October 2012.
[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant's judgment on the main defense of this case is not the plaintiff but the parties who entered into the contract of this case with the defendant, so the plaintiff, not the parties to the contract of this case, has no standing to sue in the lawsuit of this case. However, in the lawsuit of performance, the standing to sue is a person who asserts that the right to demand performance exists, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether the right to demand performance exists or not shall be proved through the deliberation on the main defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005). The defendant'
3. Judgment on the merits
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 primary claim: The Defendant, who is liable for tort, concluded a contract of this case with the Plaintiff who believed it by means of false words that the Defendant would supply LG chips to the Plaintiff at the rate of Grade A 10%, Grade B 20%, and Grade C 70%, and acquired them by receiving KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff as the price by providing non-use items that fall short of Class C.
Even if there was no intention to commit fraud by the Defendant at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Defendant was negligent in not verifying the status of the product, etc.