beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and C did not pay the price even if the Plaintiff was provided with alcoholic beverages in an amount equivalent to KRW 11,00,000,000,000 for total of KRW 575,000,000 and KRW 11,000,000 on August 24, 2013 at the main point of “E” on the first floor of D hotel operated by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the said price and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.
2. We examine whether the Plaintiff entered into a liquor provision contract with the Defendant.
First of all, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant was provided with alcoholic beverages and liquors equivalent to KRW 11 million on August 24, 2013, in fact at the main points operated by the Plaintiff with C, and KRW 575 million on August 24, 2013, in fact at the main points operated by the Plaintiff with C, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Even if the Defendant received alcoholic beverages worth KRW 11,00,00 from the main shop operated by the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff, the following circumstances revealed by the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the Defendant: (a) was an employee working at the main shop and became aware of the Plaintiff through the introduction of C; (b) the Defendant merely did not appear to have received alcoholic beverages from the Plaintiff with the intent to pay more than KRW 5,00,000 at a time; and (c) C introduced the Plaintiff as a person with a large amount of long-term lodging in the hotel room room in Pakistan; (b) the Plaintiff lent the Plaintiff with KRW 3,00,00 to C without any security; and (c) the instant alcoholic beverage price is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant, which was merely an employee, to provide alcoholic beverages, and treated it as credit. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant appears to have concluded a contract against the Defendant, not the Plaintiff, to have concluded the instant alcoholic beverages.