beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.06.01 2015나10361

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is decided to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On February 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff supplied D with pipes and other goods to D with respect to the instant construction; (b) around March 2010, the Defendant agreed to take over the instant construction from D and to take over the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay for the goods; (c) the Defendant claimed against D for the payment of the unpaid portion of KRW 51,045,480 among the goods price for the instant construction; and (d) the Defendant did not agree to take over the existing goods price liability against D; and (e) the Defendant paid all the price for the goods supplied by the Plaintiff after taking over the instant construction from D on May 20, 2010.

B. Considering the following facts and circumstances, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to take over the obligation to pay the price for the goods to the Plaintiff of D, which occurred before May 20, 2010, by taking into account all of the aforementioned facts and circumstances that may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of each of the evidence and arguments as above, and the statement of evidence No. 5 is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The Plaintiff asserted that D was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction work from E that it entered into a contract with C, and the Defendant also was awarded a subcontract from E, but the Defendant entered into a direct contract with C on May 20, 2010.

② The Plaintiff asserted that D transferred the instant construction to the Defendant on or around March 12, 2010, but D went to the construction site even before April 20, 2010, and reported it to the police upon the occurrence of a material theft accident after transfer. On April 13, 2010, the Defendant’s wages related to the instant construction.