beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On April 20, 2018, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant by serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date for pleading on the defendant by public notice, and on April 20, 2018, the court rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff on May 20, 2018. On May 2, 2018, the original copy of the judgment also served on the defendant by public notice, and thereafter, the defendant became aware of the fact that the court of first instance rendered a judgment on May 31, 2018, and subsequently filed an subsequent appeal on June 8, 2018, which is two weeks or less, pursuant to the purport of the evidence No. 1-1 and the entire pleadings. Accordingly, the failure of the defendant to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal is due to any cause not attributable to the defendant. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant within two weeks from the time the court of first instance became final and conclusive by public notice is lawful.
2. The plaintiff's assertion is a person who engages in the retail business of dissolved in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and D market with the trade name "E", and the defendant is a person who engages in the wholesale business of fishery products in the same market name F (G).
From 208 to September 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with fishery products, such as merat, and was not paid KRW 4,276,000 from the Defendant. Around January 2, 2017, the Plaintiff was supplied with limited value equivalent to KRW 1,608,100 from the Defendant and did not pay that amount to the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 2,667,90 (=4,276,000 - 1,608,100) and damages for delay.
3. It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant and supplied fishery products equivalent to KRW 4,276,000, solely on the basis of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without a need to further examine the remaining issues.