물품대금
1. The decision of the court of first instance that ruled against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the wholesale and retail business of e-chemical devices with the trade name of “C” and the Defendant is a person who operates the hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”) with the trade name of “E” in Youngsi District D.
B. From July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff traded medical devices, etc. to the instant hospital and traded them on credit.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not pay the price of the goods equivalent to KRW 1,902,670 among the goods supplied by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the price of the above goods and the damages for delay.
B. Among the statement of transactions presented by the Plaintiff, there is no hospital’s official seal or transferee, and there is a possibility that the customer director presented by the Plaintiff differs from the customer director submitted by the Defendant, and there is a possibility that false or changed later. Thus, the above claim amount which the Plaintiff seeks to be the unpaid amount is difficult to believe.
3. In full view of the overall purport of each statement and argument of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including each number), the plaintiff issued a statement of transaction to the defendant while supplying medical devices. The total amount of the goods stated in the transaction statement from July 26, 2013 to November 15, 2013 is 2,810,350; the plaintiff was paid KRW 907,680 out of the above goods price by the defendant; the transaction statement submitted by the plaintiff and the customer director (Evidence No. 5) are compared with the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant; the balance between the goods supplied by the plaintiff and the amount of the transaction statement submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant; and the balance between the customer director (Evidence No. 5) at the time of the last transaction with the defendant as of November 15, 2013 can be acknowledged as constituting 1,902,670.
The evidence, as mentioned above, as well as Nos. 1 and 1.