물품대금
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows: (i) the statement of evidence of subparagraphs A through 7 (including each number), the witness G, and each part of the testimony of the H in the first instance court from 7 to 11 of the judgment (including each number); and (ii) the statement of the reasons of the first instance court’s judgment, except for the addition of the final judgment of the first instance court prior to the final conclusion of the first instance court’s judgment, is the same as the statement of the reasons of the second instance judgment, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional parts of the trial;
E. At the trial of a party, even if there is no explicit direct payment agreement between the plaintiffs, the defendant, and Pyeongtaek Construction, even if there is no direct payment agreement, in light of the fact that the plaintiffs did not have any reason to conclude a large amount of oil supply contract with Pyeongtaek Construction in the absence of direct payment agreement, and that the plaintiffs actually received oil payment from the defendant two times after oil supply, it may be deemed that there was a direct payment agreement between the third party, and even if there was no direct payment agreement between the third party, the two direct payment agreement between the defendant and Pyeongtaek Construction constitutes a contract between the third party (the plaintiffs), and even if there was no direct payment agreement between the third party, the expression of intent of profits by the plaintiffs against the defendant was expressed by claiming the oil payment against the defendant, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the oil payment to the plaintiffs.
(1) In light of the circumstances in which the explicit direct and non-assignment agreement between the third parties cannot be acknowledged as to the above assertion, it is insufficient to recognize the existence of the above implied direct and non-assignment agreement merely with the witness G, H, and witness F of the first instance trial, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.