물품대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. On January 7, 201, the Plaintiff asserts that, on the premise that the Defendant purchased a list equivalent to KRW 12,000,000 from the Plaintiff on January 7, 201, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff value-added tax amounting to KRW 1,200,000, and damages for delay.
In regard to this, the Defendant did not purchase the list from the Plaintiff, and expressed interest in the list to the Plaintiff, and unilaterally sent the list to the Plaintiff, and that the list was merely the fact that the Plaintiff refused the receipt of the list by holding the old-style type which is impossible to inspect the list.
It is insufficient to recognize that the contract for the sale of a list between the original and the defendant was concluded only with the descriptions and images of the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 4-3, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 4-3 and 1-1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the original and the Defendant did not prepare any trade-related documents, such as a written estimate or sales contract on the family list, ② the Plaintiff’s family list sent to the Defendant was not completely used by the Defendant, and ③ the Plaintiff sold the family list to a third party around February 2018, it is determined that there is no further persuasive assertion among the original and the Defendant that there is no family list trade among them.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not recognized as a premise, and therefore, it is not justified without further review.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay the steel price and damages for delay on the ground that the Defendant did not pay KRW 11,162,690 for steel costs even though he/she was supplied with steel by the Plaintiff during October 2016.
As to this, the defendant ordered from the plaintiff.