물품대금
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 21,774,100 and shall pay to the plaintiff the full amount from March 1, 2019.
1. In full view of the overall purport of pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8 through 15, 33, 34, 35 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the defendant who operated the trade mark "D" in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the trade mark "F" in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter the above main points are referred to as "each main points of this case"), the plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages by February 11, 2019, and the plaintiff did not receive KRW 11,871,700 out of the price, and the F supplied alcoholic beverages by September 13, 2018 and did not receive KRW 9,902,400 out of the price, and thus, the defendant has a duty to pay the plaintiff the unpaid alcoholic beverage price to the plaintiff, KRW 21,710,710,7109,790,7109).
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The main point of the argument was that the Defendant received alcoholic beverages from the Plaintiff’s employee business G, and paid the total amount of alcoholic beverages in cash to G as of the end of each month.
Therefore, the unpaid alcoholic beverages related to each main point of the instant case are not fully repaid and remain.
B. According to the witness G of the first instance court’s testimony in the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the judgment, G is recognized that he/she joined the Plaintiff Company on April 1, 2017 and supplied alcoholic beverages to a business partner including each main point of the instant case as a business director and provided alcoholic beverages to the business partner.
Furthermore, G: (a) around September 2018, at the court of first instance, retired from the Plaintiff’s company on or after the end of the pertinent month; (b) provided alcoholic beverages to each of the main points of this case while working until the end of June 2019; and (c) received the payment of alcoholic beverages from the Defendant in cash at the end of each month, and deposited them to the Plaintiff; and (d) part of the payment was not made to the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s assertion is consistent with
However, Gap evidence Nos. 42, Eul Nos. 4, 5, 11 through 14, 20, 22.