beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and exports a room in the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “China”); and the Defendant is a company that processes a room in Vietnam plant and imports and delivers the room in Korea.
B. The Defendant Intervenor leased the name of the company, such as “C,” if necessary for the business, to a person engaged in the trade business of the Central Domestic Control Group in the name of “B” (hereinafter “B”) in the Chinese Jin-si.
C. The defendant was supplied with the room staff produced by the plaintiff, and the process of the transaction is as follows.
1) In order to purchase a room room, the Defendant prepared and sent the “original order” to the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor. For example, on October 4, 201, the Defendant indicated the “unit price” column of the original order as “F (the name of the manufacture company of the room room group)” in the “unit price” column of the original order ordering number D and E, and ordered the room room. 2) The Defendant’s supplementary intervenor’s employees G confirmed the room price of the production company of the room group, such as the Plaintiff or F, and reported it to the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor. The Defendant’s supplementary intervenor presented transaction conditions, such as the price, to the Defendant by adding the room price of the room group reported by G to its profits.
For example, in the case of order No. D and E, G, on October 9, 201, deemed “3 US dollars per annum” to the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor on October 9, 201, and the Defendant’s Intervenor presented the condition that “12 US$3 per annum.” On October 10, 201, the Defendant’s Intervenor sent samples to the Defendant on October 10, 201, which read “12 US$3.45 US dollars per page.”
3) The Defendant Intervenor expressed in China that H (the name of H and H is indicated as F and I, and in e-mail, the Plaintiff is not his employee. However, the Plaintiff asserted that he is not his employee.