물품대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the following parts, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
(However, with the exception of the part regarding the co-defendant B of the first instance court, the part regarding the separate and final judgment, "Defendant B" and "Defendant C" in the judgment of the first instance shall be indicated as "B" and "Defendant C" as "Defendant"). 2. Under the third judgment of the first instance, the "Defendant C" in the judgment of the first instance court is as follows.
“The Defendant’s referred B” is registered as the name “E” from June 5, 2007 to the name of “E” and the wedding hall (hereinafter “the wedding hall”) refers to the instant wedding hall.
) The Plaintiff operated the instant wedding. From May 1, 2013 to May 8, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied 110,794,257 won out of the price of the goods supplied to the instant wedding hall and did not receive 110,794,257 won out of the price of the goods. The “nurbing consignment” in the last 3th judgment of the first instance court is the “management consignment.”
The first instance court’s Decision Nos. 6, 2, and 3 states that all deposits made after October 10, 2014 are appropriated for the repayment of the price of goods supplied before October 10, 2014, the maturity date of which expires. As follows, it is reasonable to deem that all deposits made after October 10, 2014 was appropriated for the repayment of the price of goods supplied before October 10, 2014 (this objection is the Defendant’s payment made after October 10, 2014). Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the money deposited after October 10, 2014 should be appropriated for the repayment of the price of goods supplied after October 10, 2014.
However, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the method of satisfaction of claim No. 1 by itself.
It is insufficient to recognize that the designated appropriation has been made, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and it is not possible to accept it before October 2014, the due date for repayment is old according to the order of statutory appropriation of appropriation in accordance with Article 477 of the Civil Code.