beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 61,379,602 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 11, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From January 6, 2017 to May 31, 2017, the Defendant was supplied with food materials, such as meat, equivalent to KRW 93,379,602 (hereinafter “instant goods”).
B. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 32,000,000 out of the instant goods price by the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, witness C's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is the party to the goods supply contract of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay 61,379,602 won (=9,379,602 won - 32,00,000 won) of the balance of the goods price of this case to the plaintiff, and that the defendant ordered the actual representative C of the corporation D (hereinafter "D") to supply the goods of this case, so the party to the goods supply contract of this case is not a party to the goods supply contract of this case but D or its actual representative C, and thus the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.
B. Determination 1) Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. In the event that there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties, the parties’ interpretation of the intent is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the content of the juristic act, the motive and background leading up to such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da238212, Jan. 25, 2018). In light of the foregoing legal principles, in the instant case, evidence and evidence as seen earlier, evidence Nos. 5 through 15, Nos. 1, 4, 5, and Nos. 2-1 and 2-1, i.e., the Plaintiff’s goods stored in D warehouse, and then the Plaintiff’s employee F and G were delivered to the Defendant.