beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a juristic person operating the drug sales business, and the Defendant is operating Asan City B Hospital (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”). From August 201, the Plaintiff entered into a continuous contract for the supply of medicines with the Defendant and supplied the medicines to the Defendant. The Plaintiff paid KRW 374,250,000 in total to the Defendant as a performance bond from August 23, 201 to February 28, 2012.
Accordingly, on March 29, 2012, D, the head of the administrative office of the Defendant Hospital, prepared and delivered a loan certificate (Evidence No. 4; hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 70,000,000 from the Plaintiff on his/her behalf to secure the payment of part of the obligation to repay the said performance bond,” and issued a promissory note (Evidence No. 2, 3, and hereinafter “the instant promissory note”) with a face value of 50,000,000 on July 17, 2013, and the due date as of July 31, 2015, and a promissory note issued as of October 2, 2013 with a face value of 50,000,000,000,000, and the due date as of October 31, 2015.
Meanwhile, as the Defendant terminated the medicine supply contract between the Plaintiff on July 10, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to return total of KRW 170,000,000 to the Plaintiff, which is secured by the said loan certificate and promissory note.
B. The defendant's assertion that there was no performance guarantee from the plaintiff, as alleged by the plaintiff, and the Promissory Notes of this case were issued in order to secure the defendant's drug payment obligation, and the loan certificate of this case was made by D with the seal of the defendant arbitrarily, so the plaintiff's claim based on the Promissory Notes of this case and the loan certificate of this case
2. Determination:
A. There is no dispute between the parties to the determination of the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of a bill, or comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence No. 8 and Eul evidence No. 1 (including the number of branches), and witness D’s testimony, the whole purport of the pleading.