beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,291,60 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 10, 2016 to March 20, 2017.
Reasons
1. The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5.
The Plaintiff supplied materials to the Defendant from around 2015 to June 9, 2016.
B. The Plaintiff is not paid KRW 22,291,60 among the above supply price.
2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that the original defendant had to receive materials, but since the other party to the transaction was changed to D, the defendant did not have an obligation to pay the delivery price.
In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned recognition basis, the other party who received materials from the Plaintiff can be sufficiently recognized as the Defendant, and since part of the evidence No. 4 alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, the above assertion by the Defendant is not accepted.
1) The Plaintiff continued to urge the Defendant to pay the above delivery price prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. The Defendant provided only a vindication that the Defendant was not the counterparty, but only sought suspension of payment. 2) Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s text message sent and received, the Defendant continued to withhold payment and sent a text message to the Plaintiff around April 12, 2016, stating that “The Defendant was partly deposited and the Defendant was willing to confirm the payment to D.”
However, the content of the above text message itself is merely merely a unilateral notification of the defendant, and cannot be deemed as having given the plaintiff's consent. The content of the above text message is understood as "the nominal owner who received money is a corporation D, and this is the defendant's confirmation that the money was paid by the defendant," and it does not mean that the other party to the transaction was changed to D.
3. The plaintiff issued.