beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims that are changed in exchange at the trial are dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted 1) On January 11, 2013 and April 17, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a fishery products supply contract of KRW 128,220,000 in total amount for the goods; the fishery products supply contract of KRW 27,915,200 in the amount for the goods as of January 18, 2013; and the fishery products supply contract of KRW 112,70,000 in the amount for the goods as of March 19, 2013; and the Defendant paid the amount for each of the goods as of March 19, 2013 to the Defendants. Nevertheless, the Defendants did not supply the goods to the Plaintiff; thus, the Defendants cancelled each fishery products supply contract on the grounds of nonperformance; and the Defendants paid the amount for the goods to their original state.
Even if it is not so, each fishery products supply contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendants is concluded by the deception of the defendants, and each contract is cancelled and the subsequent restitution is sought to return the price of goods paid to the defendants.
(The plaintiff changed the cause of the claim in the trial.)
B. Each of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 (including paper numbers) and witness Gap’s testimony was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendants, as alleged by the plaintiff.
It is not sufficient to recognize that there was deception by the Defendants in relation to the conclusion of the contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
[Plaintiff also stated at the first date for pleading of the trial, that “as the Plaintiff purchased fishery products from the Defendants for the Plaintiff and supplied them to the deep-sea products limited company, it shall pay the amount of goods to the Defendants, and then deliver a tax invoice equivalent to such amount to the Defendants, and then claims the amount of goods against the deep-sea products limited company” (the grounds for appeal dated November 20, 2014, and the conclusion of each fishery products supply contract to the Plaintiff).