물품계약금
1. The plaintiff's primary claim added in the appellate court is dismissed.
2. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff.
1. Judgment as to the main claim
A. On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale of goods or any similar service contract with the content that the Defendant, who exclusively received the lawsuit from the Defendant Company C (hereinafter “C”), to purchase the goods goods goods goods (k) goods (k) fixtures from the Defendant, and paid KRW 120,000,000 to the Defendant as the down payment on August 8, 2013, and the lawsuit cost group would receive the goods on the 19th of the same month.
The Defendant is liable to complete the contract by delivering C’s lawsuit fixtures to the Plaintiff on the fixed date and price pursuant to the above contract.
The Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the said nonperformance of obligation.
B. On August 8, 2013, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a cashier’s check consisting of the total par value of KRW 120,000.
However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the sale of bamboo equipment, or the contract for the sale of goods, or any similar service thereto, owned by C with the sole statement of evidence Nos. 2, 9, 10, and 12, and there is no evidence to
Rather, considering the statement of No. 2 and witness E’s testimony, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with F having de facto business instruction authority over E, who is the representative director of C, as a major shareholder of C, to purchase KRW 500,000,000,000 per square meter, and first pay KRW 120,000,000 as the down payment, first of all, to the F, and it is recognized that the Plaintiff had the Defendant deliver to F a cashier by issuing a cashier’s check causing 120,000,000, the face value of which is 120,000 won.
The plaintiff's primary claim based on the premise that there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is without merit.
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion.