물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff continued to supply the goods to the Defendant on September 2012, and that as of September 25, 2012, the amount of the goods unpaid by the Defendant is KRW 22,993,50,00, the Defendant should pay the said unpaid goods to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 22,93,50, and damages for delay.
On September 2012, the plaintiff supplied 22,93,50 won to the defendant around September 2012, it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the entries of Gap evidence 1 through 6 and witness C's testimony. Rather, the above macroscopic evidence is recognized by the witness Eul's testimony, i.e., the following circumstances: ① the instant Gohap appears to have been used in the supply contract of clothes for the E hotel scopium and the above Gohap appears to have not entered into a contract for the supply of clothes; ② the F or G appears to have entered into a contract for the above clothes; ② the F would have leased the warehouse from the defendant, but the F would have operated the business registration under the name of a third party, separate from the defendant; ③ the Gohap supplied the Plaintiff with the bonds from the plaintiff F through the plaintiff, ④ the Plaintiff supplied the Escopic to the defendant, and ④ the Plaintiff appears to have supplied the instant 3scopic loan to the defendant.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.