beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Claim for the purchase price;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff sold a 300 knives (3,000 knives) to the Defendant on December 24, 2012, and sought payment of KRW 21,00,000 for the goods.
In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant purchased 300 ambling 300 from B, not the Plaintiff, rather than the Plaintiff. On November 29, 2012, the Defendant first purchased ambling equivalent to KRW 21,000,000 from B, and deposited the price into the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff designated by B. The amount was verified, and the goods were returned to B, and the ambling was not the ambling, but the ambling was returned to B, and that the ambling 300 ambling 300 from B was delivered as a substitute on December 24, 2012, and that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.
B. We examine whether the parties to a contract for the purchase and sale of the Dayun (seller) on December 24, 2012 of the instant case are the Plaintiff.
According to Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff and Eul entered into an agreement on Nov. 20, 2012 on the following: (a) on Nov. 20, 2012, Eul imported fishery products in China and takes charge of domestic sales; and (b) such fishery products belong to the plaintiff; (c) on Nov. 29, 2012, the 655 stuffs owned by the plaintiff which was kept in a cooling warehouse managed by the same cooling company were released to the defendant on Nov. 29, 2012; and (d) at the time
The fact that the Plaintiff affixed his official seal on the transferor’s column, and the Defendant affixed his official seal on the transferee column; the Defendant deposited KRW 21,00,000 in the Plaintiff’s account in the Plaintiff’s name; and the fact that the 300 Gab uniform 300,000, which was kept in the air conditioning warehouse (hereinafter “Gab uniform”) was shipped out to the Defendant on December 24, 2012 is recognized.
However, in light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 8-7, 9, 10, Eul evidence No. 12, Eul evidence No. 13, and Eul evidence No. 13, which are acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings.