2015Da2577 Payments for Goods

Asan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd

A

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Na1011 Decided December 11, 2014

September 15, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. C around 2004, from around 2005, from around 2005, from 'I' to 'I', from 2007 to 'electric power source medicine', and from 2010 to 'the Plaintiff's company as a drug seller, and the Defendant was supplied with drugs from the above company since February 2004 as a doctor operating the B Hospital.

B. The purchase of the medicine through C was conducted by the employee in charge of the Defendant or B Hospital in order to determine the items and quantity of the medicine, and when the medicine is delivered to B Hospital, the employee in charge of the medicine replaced the medicine with the name, size, quantity, and so on stated in the original order for the medicine delivered with the medicine. After that, C, who visited the hospital received a copy of the original order for the medicine and replaced the contents of the original order for the medicine, confirmed the transaction statement stating the name, unit price, supply price, etc. of the medicine, and confirmed the transaction statement and the transaction statement stating the name, unit price, supply price, etc. of the medicine, and the confirmation stamp was affixed to the individual medicine quantity column and the price column of the medicine transaction. Even after the transfer of the Plaintiff Company, C signed a signature on the side of the accumulated balance of the medicine transaction on the basis of the previous invoice for the medicine supplied to the Defendant. C made the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from the point of June 15, 2015.

D. The Plaintiff’s name, quantity, unit price, supply price, deposited amount, balance, etc. of the Plaintiff’s drug supplied to the customer are indicated. Within this period, the agreement on the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Defendant, including the method of payment and the provision of security, are stated, and seals are affixed to the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the party to the transaction. From June 28, 2011 to June 90, 201, which stated the cumulative balance of KRW 92,970,854, which stated that the cumulative balance of the Plaintiff’s drug was stated, the Defendant signed the remaining cumulative balance of the Plaintiff’s drug supplied to the Defendant by 6 times until December 22, 201.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected Plaintiff’s claim for drug price corresponding to the accumulated balance of the Plaintiff on the grounds stated in its reasoning, including that no evidence was found to deem that electric source drugs transferred the claim to the Defendant to the Plaintiff or met the requirements for setting up against the assignment of the claim. In so doing, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Decision 200

Note Justice Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young