물품대금
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.
1. The party's assertion and judgment
A. On July 15, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff took over the F point located in Orcheon-gu E (hereinafter “F fixed land”) in the name of the Plaintiff, Orcheon-gu, Ocheon-si (hereinafter “F fixed land”). During that process, the Defendant owed the following obligations to the Plaintiff.
① The Defendant promised to the Plaintiff that “the Defendant would pay the same amount as the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,008,557 that the Plaintiff would pay to D’s account payable to G, and around that time, the Plaintiff paid the said amount to G.
② At the time of the acquisition of the above F-F fixed land points, the Defendant accepted KRW 19,456,787, the outstanding amount that D had been owed to the Plaintiff.
③ On July 19, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied goods worth KRW 202,50,00 to the F static Point after the Defendant acquired F static Point.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 15,189,750, which the Plaintiff received from the Defendant during the period from August 6, 2014 to February 1, 2016, the remainder of KRW 11,478,09,094, and damages for delay.
B. The goods transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was completed on July 7, 2015.
F Hadung's representative H accepted the obligation claimed by the Plaintiff, and the obligation claimed by the Plaintiff is merely an individual obligation against the Plaintiff by H or her husband with respect to F Hadung's husband.
C. Determination of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 3, and 2-1, 6, 3, and 4 are written only by themselves, as alleged by the plaintiff, that the defendant took over the F static point from D (referring to taking over the F static point that the plaintiff registered on a leased lease from the former and the operator D).
It is not sufficient to recognize that the debtor has borne the debt as alleged, and there is no other evidence to prove it.
Rather, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul’s evidence Nos. 8-1 and 2, and the testimony of a witness D at the trial, the testimony of a witness at the trial is recognized by adding the whole purpose of the pleading to the testimony of a witness at the trial.