logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.12.18 2020나57576
물품대금
Text

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, who runs the wholesale and retail business of various beverages, supplied various drinking water to the Domine shop shop in the Dongjak-gu Seoul apartment complex C apartment complex (hereinafter “instant shop”). The remaining goods price as of May 19, 2015 is KRW 1,016,000.

B. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased a heavy ice ice ice 1,200,000 won as necessary for the sale of drinking water, and supplied it to the instant store for KRW 600,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, the whole purport of pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 1,616,00,000, as the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with various beverages and ice ice ices.

(2) The Defendant did not receive the Plaintiff’s supply of various drinking water and heavy ices from the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant, who operated the instant store, with one of the various drinking water and ice ice ice ices.

① Around October 17, 2011, the Defendant has been operating the instant store for several years since it began to operate the instant store.

In this court, the defendant stated that the defendant is not memoryd even after being repeated by the presiding judge on the time when the operation of the store of this case was completed, and presented an attitude to avoid the answer.

② Although the Plaintiff did not face face with the Defendant, it argued that the Plaintiff supplied various drinking water to the instant store upon receiving a request from the proprietor of the instant store to deliver it directly to the mobile phone (E). The Defendant recognized the fact that the business owner’s mobile phone number of the instant store mentioned by the Plaintiff in this court corresponds to his/her mobile phone number.

(c) small decision;

arrow