beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the court of first instance.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the sales of tools and safety protective outfits with the trade name of D, and C completes the business registration of E in the name of the Defendant, and is a person engaged in construction business while actually operating the above E.
B. From May 3, 2011 to June 1, 2011, the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 5,800,300, such as safety caps, to E on seven occasions (hereinafter “instant goods transaction”), but failed to receive KRW 5,528,800, out of the price of the goods.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion E is registered as a business operator under the name of the Defendant, and the tax invoice was also issued as the person to whom the Defendant was supplied, and part of the amount of goods was paid to the Plaintiff through the passbook in the Defendant’s name, and the Defendant received goods in D. In light of the above circumstances, the parties to the instant goods transaction are the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the unpaid amount of KRW 5,528,800 and damages for delay.
B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the Plaintiff and the other party who traded the goods of this case are C or not, there is no dispute over whether the Plaintiff and the other party who traded the goods of this case are C or not, the fact that E’s business registration has been completed under the Defendant’s name, and that the tax invoice of KRW 6,267,800 was issued as of May 31, 201, the aggregate amount of KRW 561,000 as of June 30, 201, which was issued as of June 30, 201 by the recipient of the Defendant, was deposited as KRW 1,849,100 in the name of the Defendant in the passbook of the Plaintiff on April 29, 201, and the fact that the Defendant visited D operated by the Plaintiff on May 20, 2011, signed the confirmation column to the effect that it received and confirmed the payment.
However, each of the above basic facts, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings is integrated.