beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A’s KRW 95,966,50 and its related KRW 5% per annum from July 8, 2010 to January 8, 2014.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who performs the work of supplying agricultural, livestock, and fishery products, such as chip, fry, rice, etc., as school food materials in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and the Defendants are couples and couples, who engage in wholesale and retail business, such as food and miscellaneous products, in the name of E from Changwon-si, Changwon-si’s window D (hereinafter “E”).
B. In order for the Plaintiff to supply school materials, the Plaintiff has been awarded a contract for agricultural, livestock, and livestock products, such as QC products, which are products that the Mayor/Do governor grants a quality certification mark from general farmers, through competitive bidding, and supplied them to schools.
C. Defendant A, as a non-official organization, requested the Plaintiff to purchase Gyeongnam QC items on or around December 2008 as the secretary general of the F, and the Plaintiff was engaged in transactions with Defendant A, rice, drilling, spaws, and spaws. As Defendant A had the right to implied monopoly of QC products, there would be considerable profits if Defendant A entered into an implied contract with Defendant A, and the Plaintiff would have entered into an implied exclusive supply contract with the Plaintiff on September 10, 2009, and the Plaintiff would have paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on September 23, 2009, and the Plaintiff would have concluded a contract with Defendant B and the Defendant’s wife on September 23, 2009 as a total product food supply contract with Defendant B and the Plaintiff as an eco-friendly agricultural product food supply contract with the Plaintiff on September 23, 2009.
After entering into the sales contract of this case, the Plaintiff received eco-friendly silence from the “G”, which is an implied production business entity designated by Defendant A, after obtaining implied permission from Samho-ho-ho, the Plaintiff. On October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff received an amount of supply as demanded by the Plaintiff until October 30, 2009, but thereafter, the Plaintiff did not look at the factory warehouse with a small amount of implied quantity ordered by the Plaintiff.