beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim are as follows: C and the Defendant, representing the Plaintiff on September 10, 2014, agreed to supply the Plaintiff with KRW 182,60,00 (including the sum of KRW 1,800 per piece, KRW 36,000, KRW 130,000 per piece, KRW 130,000 per piece, and KRW 130,000) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant supply agreement”); on September 15, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 50% of the supplied amount to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant agreement; on September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 182,60,000 to the Plaintiff; or on September 15, 2014, the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 501,300,000 among the parties to the instant agreement; or on May 18, 2015.
Plaintiff’s assertion
The Plaintiff asserts that the instant supply agreement is null and void, and the Plaintiff asserts that the instant supply agreement is null and void, as it did not have the power of representation against C who is the party to the instant supply agreement, or that the settlement and contractual terms of at least 500,000 won under the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation need prior approval of the representative director, C did not comply with such provision.
However, according to the above evidence, C appears to have the power of representation to conclude the instant supply agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation on settlement of not less than 500,000 won is merely the Plaintiff’s internal rules and cannot be asserted to the Defendant. Thus, there is no ground for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant supply agreement is null and void.
The plaintiff alleged implied rescission of agreement and the judgment of the plaintiff neglected the obligation of both parties under the supply agreement of this case for a long time. Thus, according to the evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff alleged that the supply agreement of this case was implicitly rescinded between the original defendant, but failed to perform the obligation of both parties under the supply agreement of this case.