1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company aimed at distributing and selling agricultural products, and the Defendant is a merchant who engages in wholesale and retail business of agricultural and fishery products in the trade name of “C”.
B. On September 2, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a 500 km amounting to KRW 77,250,000 (hereinafter “instant agricultural product”). On September 7, 2016, the Defendant remitted KRW 30,000 out of the said KRW 77,250,000 to the Plaintiff as the price for the goods.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 6-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether any obligation to pay balance of the purchase price arises;
A. The parties’ assertion that the plaintiff entered into a sales contract between the defendant and the defendant to sell the agricultural product of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant has the obligation to pay the plaintiff the remaining payment amount of KRW 47,250,000 (i.e., the above KRW 77,250,000 - the above KRW 30,000) and damages for delay.
As to this, the defendant asserts that the above sales contract was concluded orally with the plaintiff, and that the above sales contract was not concluded with the plaintiff.
B. The following facts are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5-1 and 2, which are: ① on August 30, 2016, the defendant remitted KRW 155,000 to the plaintiff on August 31, 2016 while sending the sample of the agricultural product of this case; ② on September 2, 2016, the defendant was supplied with the agricultural product of this case from the plaintiff, and ② on September 3, 2016, issued the "written confirmation of acceptance" (Evidence No. 1) to the plaintiff on September 3, 2016; ③ around September 2, 2016, the plaintiff delivered a tax invoice (Evidence No. 2) to the defendant on September 2, 2016. The purport of the tax invoice is that the plaintiff had no dispute with the defendant on September 2, 2016.