물품대금
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding or adding as mentioned below 2, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A part concerning addition or height;
(a) Nos. 10 and 11 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed by the following:
A person shall be appointed.
C. As to the instant transaction, the remainder of the price of goods remaining after repayment by the date of the closing of argument in the trial room is KRW 65,049,99.
A person shall be appointed.
(b) Nos. 2 and 12 of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.
[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings]
C. On the 2nd judgment of the first instance court, “F of the Defendant’s husband” was added to “F of the Defendant’s former husband F (which was married at the time of the instant transaction, but was divorced on July 8, 2016).”
Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, "The purpose of the written evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the A and the whole pleadings" was "The purport of the written evidence No. 2 and 3 of the A and the whole pleadings" in Part 4 of the judgment of the first instance.
(e) Parts 3, 7, and 8 of the first instance court's decision "The circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 3-3 of Eul," Eul's basic facts and the evidence mentioned above, Eul's evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), and the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, and "in addition, the following circumstances are followed."
(f)in Part III, following the third decision of the first instance, add:
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is responsible for the payment of the instant transaction price since the Plaintiff granted the Defendant the comprehensive power of attorney regarding the operation of the “E” to F. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s business registration under the name of the Defendant is as seen earlier, and the Defendant and F from August 19, 2013 to March 1, 2016, including the instant transaction period, are as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27075, Mar. 2, 2016>