beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts are companies engaged in manufacturing and selling feed, cultivating agricultural, livestock, and fishery products, breeding, processing, and selling feed. B is an agent who enters into an agency contract with the Plaintiff and sells the mixed feed after being supplied with the mixed feed, and the Defendant is a double-generation agent who operates the double-generation.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 7, witness Eul's testimony, the whole purport of pleading
2. The gist of the parties’ assertion is as follows: “The Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of mixed feed in the name of C, which raises the Defendant’s chickens entrusted by the Defendant, with the supply of mixed feed from the Plaintiff; accordingly, from February 18, 2011 to December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the mixed feed used in the mass field from the Plaintiff. As of December 18, 2013, the amount unpaid is KRW 132,990,932, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said amount to the Plaintiff.”
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that "a person only entered into a mixed feed supply contract with the plaintiff and there was no agreement on the mixed feed supply contract with the plaintiff, and the defendant cannot confirm the quantity and unit price of the mixed feed supplied by the defendant, so the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request."
3. The reasoning of the judgment reveals that the Defendant concluded a mixed feed supply contract with the Plaintiff in the name of C and that the Plaintiff received the mixed feed supply from the Plaintiff during the period from February 23, 2011 to December 31, 2013, and that part of the witness C’s testimony is as follows: Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, and 9, witness B and Eul’s testimony, and the entire purport of the arguments; in other words, C stated that the Defendant was not entrusted with the raising of chickens from February 2010; the Plaintiff did not have a tax invoice issued in the name of C from February 23, 2011 to December 31, 2013; and the Defendant or his wife transferred the mixed feed to the Plaintiff merely remitted the mixed feed payment.