물품대금 등
1. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The defendants of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor added at the trial court are also the defendants of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.
1. The reasoning for the court’s determination of the claim for the payment of goods and the claim for the return of unjust enrichment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da42068, Apr. 1, 200).
2. Determination on the claim for damages added in the trial
A. The plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's assertion is as shown in attached Form 1 of the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's assertion
B. In full view of the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants committed embezzlement as alleged by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, and there is no other evidence sufficient to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's above assertion is without merit.
3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's claim for the price of goods and the claim for the return of unjust enrichment against the defendants and the claim for damages added in the trial are all dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance on the claim for the price of goods and the claim for return of unjust enrichment are justified in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the claim for damages added in the trial is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.