beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. On April 3, 2009, C, a director of the Plaintiff, transferred to a comprehensive succession of the Defendant that was divided and established on January 4, 2011, the rights and duties pertaining to the entire business sector, such as the land processing and feed manufacturing business of B before the division, and the trade name of the surviving divided company was changed from “stock company B” to “D” in the existing “stock company.” hereinafter the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the head of the public service office affiliated with the general affairs team of E, who was the public service office of E, who was the head of the general affairs team of E, who was the head of the above land processing and feed manufacturing business, applied the unit price of the new sanitary plastic garbage bag at KRW 60 (including printing), KRW 8,500,00, and monthly change at least KRW 500 million, and the contract term shall be one year from the date of the conclusion of the contract, and the contract term shall be automatically renewed every five years, and the contract term of the supply contract shall be at least one hundred million won (hereinafter referred to as “the contract term supply contract”).
B. The contract of this case states the plaintiff and the buyer as the defendant, and the name of the "F", the defendant representative director, and the representative director's seal is affixed to the buyer's column.
C. After preparing the instant contract, the Plaintiff produced the food packaging site and completed the verification of the stability of the food packaging site on July 23, 2009 through the quality inspection by the Korea Living Environment Examination Institute.
[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, as to Gap's evidence No. 1 (long-term goods supply contract), the defendant is disputing the establishment of the petition, but it is recognized that the above document was prepared by Eul. Thus, to the extent that it is acknowledged that Eul prepared the above document, it is problematic whether the above document can be admitted as a document under the name of the defendant.