beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is liable to pay 26,150,000 won and damages for delay due to the plaintiff's oral contract with the defendant, where the plaintiff delivered to the construction site of the Da Hospital located in Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City from November to December, 2004.
As to this, the defendant asserts that the above D Hospital Corporation received the supply from the Multilateral Construction Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., which was the contractor, and the defendant was only an employee belonging to Bocheon Engineering Co., Ltd., which was the contractor, and is not a party
B. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, in light of the following circumstances, is insufficient to recognize that the party to the contract for the supply of the above goods, who is the party to the contract for the supply of the goods, the unpaid amount of the goods, and the amount of the goods that are not paid, conform to the Plaintiff’s claim amount, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge
A Promissory note (Evidence A) received by the Plaintiff from the Defendant for the payment of the price of goods is a promissory note issued by Multi-Integrated Construction Co., Ltd. and endorsed by Bocheon Engineering Co., Ltd. as the first endorser, and there was no fact that the Defendant endorsed as the obligor on the said note.
According to the statement No. 2, the defendant paid KRW 300,00 on September 23, 2009 to the plaintiff on September 24, 2009, KRW 690,000 on September 24, 2009, and KRW 600,00 on April 2, 2013, it is recognized that the amount of payment is less than the amount of the unpaid goods claimed by the plaintiff. The amount of payment was paid after the lapse of the extended period from the date of the occurrence of the transaction statement (Evidence No. 3), and the plaintiff submitted the transaction statement (Evidence No. 3), and there was another commodity transaction other than the goods transaction in this case with the defendant, and there was 3,50,000 after deducting the price of the goods from the amount of the bill.