beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Under the trade name of the 7th floor B of the Seoul Jung-gu building (hereinafter “instant building”), the Defendant was supplied with clothing from the Plaintiff while operating the clothing retail business. At present, the name of the business operator of the instant building was changed to D, and the trade name was changed to E, there is no dispute between the parties.
2. The parties' assertion
A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the actual operator of the instant business establishment, despite the change in the name of the business operator and the trade name, is the Defendant. As such, the Defendant seek payment from the Plaintiff of KRW 114,816,930, which deducted the total amount of the clothes supplied from KRW 114,816,930 to April 23, 201, including the amount payable 90,724,430 as of August 16, 201, minus KRW 86,120,00, which was paid from August 16, 2011 to April 4, 2012.
B. The Defendant alleged that he/she transferred the business rights of the instant business establishment to D on June 30, 201, which was the Defendant’s employee, and that he/she knew the Plaintiff. Therefore, there is no liability to pay for the clothes supplied after June 30, 201.
3. Since the fact that the price for the clothes supplied to the instant establishment was fully paid before June 30, 2011, the key issue of the instant case is whether the other party to the clothes transaction supplied to the instant establishment after June 30, 201 is the defendant.
In light of the following circumstances, each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and witness D’s testimony, each statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, alone, are insufficient to recognize that the other party to the clothes transaction supplied to the instant establishment after June 30, 201, is the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the other party to the clothing transaction was the defendant.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion premised on this cannot be accepted.
The plaintiff submitted a trade account book (Evidence A No. 1) as a main evidence to support his claim, but it is only limited to the fact that the plaintiff unilaterally prepared.