logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.01.22 2015나4869
물품대금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a optical fish farm in the name of "F" in Jeonnam-do E, Jeonnam-do, and the Defendant was the representative of "G" who sells live fish in Ansan-si from June 20, 201 to December 31, 201.

B. The Plaintiff supplied active fish six times from March 25, 2014 to April 18, 2014 to C engaged in the distribution business under the trade name “D” in Jeonnam-do H, Jeonnam-do, and C supplied it to G.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff supplied active terms to C six times. C only pays 84,400,000 won out of active terms of KRW 117,40,000 and does not pay the remainder of KRW 33,00,000. This is due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the price to C. As such, the Defendant and the Plaintiff jointly pay KRW 33,000,000,000 as active terms payable to C. (2) Although the Defendant asserted that the Defendant lent the passbook under the Defendant’s name to I operating the “G,” the Defendant did not have any contractual relationship with the Plaintiff.

In addition, I paid C all the active fish prices supplied by C.

B. On the other hand, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the Plaintiff’s provision of active language to C, and there is no contractual relationship with the Defendant, and the fact that “G” did not pay active terms to C cannot be claimed to the Defendant for payment of active terms to C. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking payment of active terms to the Defendant is without merit.

The Plaintiff appears to have presented the evidence No. 9 to the effect that C received KRW 33 million out of the purchase price claim against the Defendant. However, the statement of evidence No. 9 alone is that C has a claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant.

arrow