물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On June 9, 2003, the Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the wholesale business of fishery products with the trade name called “C,” and the Defendant, from around December 2016, was in charge of accounting affairs in the above C, and completed business registration for the wholesale business of fishery products with the trade name called “D, E, F, and G from May 20 to September 13, 2017.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. From May 22, 2017 to June 21, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) supplied the Defendant with fishery products equivalent to KRW 319,19,198,00, such as freezing, fluoring, fluoring, ju, ju, ju, ju, high-class, and vegetatorship; and (b) received only KRW 154,872,650 from the Defendant; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 164,325,350 (= KRW 319,198,00-154,872,650).
(2) If the goods are traded between the Plaintiff and H by lending the name of H, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with H to pay the price of the goods to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
From July 2017, the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant under the name of the purchase cost and the lease deposit for freezing and fresh fish, and since the money not returned as of September 19, 2018 is KRW 45,00,000,000, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant had been supplied with fishery products by operating an independent store at the same time while serving as an employee in charge of the Plaintiff’s accounting. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that a contract for goods supply was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove the fact that there was a trade between H and the Plaintiff by lending the name of the Defendant to H. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove that
Rather, the purpose of the whole pleadings is to state evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and witness H's testimony.