기자재대여 약정서
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim concerning the above revoked part is dismissed.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On March 19, 2014, when the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to a mutually owned restaurant, “B” operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant restaurant”), the Plaintiff concluded an agreement on equipment leasing with the Defendant and supplied eight air conditioners, and the Defendant unilaterally ceased the transaction of alcoholic beverages on April 1, 2015. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 3,040,000, which is the supply price of eight air conditioners, as stipulated in the above equipment leasing agreement.
The defendant, on the condition that he is supplied with alcoholic beverages by the plaintiff, was installed at the defendant restaurant and suspended transactions with the plaintiff. However, the defendant did not conclude an agreement on equipment leasing with the plaintiff, and if the liquor supplier changes the liquor station in the ordinary restaurant, it is a trade practice that collects the equipment existing in the liquor supplier and does not claim a separate damages. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is unjust.
B. First of all, as to the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (Agreement on Equipment Rental), the testimony of the witness C at the trial has been signed by the owner of the ordinary equipment rental agreement, the evidence No. 1 (Agreement on Equipment Rental) merely states that the signature was made by the defendant who is the business owner or a person who is a representative of the defendant at the defendant cafeteria is not sufficient to recognize the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (Agreement on Equipment Rental), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence No. 1.
Therefore, the evidence No. 1 cannot be used as evidence, and there is no other evidence to prove that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages under the above equipment rental agreement is without merit without examining further.
2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.