beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity engaged in textile, clothing manufacturing and trade business, and the Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who runs a product brokerage business under the trade name of “C (C; hereinafter “C”).
D (D) D(hereinafter referred to as “D”) is a corporation that runs the clothing sales business that has its head office in California, California.
B. D requested the Plaintiff, via the Defendant, through a private individual, to supply clothing, such as cody dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy dy e, from August 14, 2018 to December 12, 2019, the Plaintiff supplied clothing equivalent to KRW 429,958,502 to D via the Defendant as a private individual, and was under custody at the
C. D filed a petition for bankruptcy with a U.S. court on February 4, 2019. Accordingly, among them, D could not pay the Defendant totaling KRW 577,552,075 (i.e., KRW 147,593,573, and the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the instant clothing price.
[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. The party who directly traded with the plaintiff D is the defendant, and the plaintiff supplied the clothing to the defendant with the defendant's subordinate office. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the clothing price of this case.
B. The defendant is merely a broker mediating the trade in clothes between the defendant D and the plaintiff, or a person who sells clothes to D under the defendant's name upon entrustment by the plaintiff, and the defendant does not directly bear the duty to pay the price for the clothes of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request
3. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 13, the Defendant’s internal document as the event (Vendor and supplier).