1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the wholesale business of fishery products under the trade name of “C”.

B. The Defendant is a person engaged in the retail business of fishery products under the trade name of “D.”

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. By December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the outstanding amount to the Defendant from around 2008 to December 31, 2014. The Plaintiff prepared a certificate of promise to repay the outstanding amount in KRW 156,80,000 to December 31, 2014, with the Defendant’s promise to repay it to the Plaintiff by February 18, 2015. The original amount was divided by the Defendant, and the copy (Evidence A2) was divided by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff 156,800,000 won and damages for delay from February 19, 2015.

B. From January 1, 2015 to February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with fishery products, etc. equivalent to KRW 101,750,000 from January 1, 2015 to February 1 of the same year, and received KRW 74,00,000 from the Defendant in cash as the price therefor. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the outstanding amount of KRW 27,750,000 and the delay damages therefrom from March 1, 2015.

3. Determination

A. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff as to the assertion of the outstanding amount by December 31, 2014 is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion as follows, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

(1) The submission of a copy of the repayment commitment document must be made by the original, original, or certified copy of the original, original, or certified copy, and the submission of evidence by only a simple copy, not the original, original, or certified copy, is unlawful, in principle, as there is no accurate guarantee.

In particular, the other party is in dispute as to the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment of the original, and the copy is used as a substitute for the original.