beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the wholesale business of agricultural and fishery products, the supply business of agricultural and fishery products, etc., and the Defendant is a company that runs food and tourist hotel business.
B. From November 2012, the Plaintiff began to supply agricultural and fishery products to “B” Et located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul. From February 2013, the Plaintiff began to supply agricultural and fishery products to “B” Et located in Guri-si.
C. On the other hand, around July 2013, the Defendant taken over a “flag” set at the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Dan Changdong from around that time to around August 2013, and operated a set with the name “Maart Erorate” or “K-Maart” and received agricultural and fishery products from the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 13,100,000 in total on three occasions from August 12, 2013 to August 27, 2013 as the price for the goods.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul witness D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (i) even if the Defendant received agricultural and fishery products from the Plaintiff from February 2013 to July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 11,387,50 out of the amount of the goods; and (ii) even if not, the Plaintiff did not.
Even if the Defendant, at the time of taking over the “Dolg Pung Pung Pung” set forth that he had taken over the outstanding debt amounting to KRW 11,387,50 of the Guri-si “B”, and sought payment from the Defendant.
B. Determination 1) First, as to whether the Defendant received agricultural and fishery products from the Plaintiff during the preceding period prior to the police officer among July 2013, 2013, the Defendant’s entry of the evidence Nos. 3 in the evidence Nos. 2 and witness Nos. 1 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Next, at the time of the Defendant’s acquisition of the local barlet in Man Chang-dong on July 2013.