beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. In full view of the testimony of witness B and witness C of the trial party who suffered from the duty, the Plaintiff received an order from the Defendant D on October 20, 2014 that the Plaintiff would be to be used for the creation of the Defendant’s Park Park Sin-si E Park around October 20, 2014, and supplied the Defendant with KRW 1,000 per share of KRW 3,360 on November 16, 201.
On the other hand, the plaintiff is a person who received KRW 2,360,000 out of the price of the above pine tree.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000 won (=3,360,000 won - 2,360,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 15, 2015 to October 21, 2016, which is the date of the ruling of the court of the first instance, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to pay to the plaintiff, from September 15, 2015, the following day of the service of the certified copy of the decision of performance recommendation of this case.
Although the Plaintiff asserts that he supplied 4,650 - 4,650 - in total to the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff supplied - 1 and 2 - with - 1 and 2 - exceeding the above recognized quantity to the Defendant.
The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.
The plaintiff asserts that since 300,000 won is required for planting pine trees at the defendant's request, such as wages, teas, meal expenses, and food expenses, etc., the defendant is obligated to pay it to the plaintiff.
In full view of the statement No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 2-1 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the testimony of the witness B of the trial party, the fact that the Plaintiff planted the Jalil tree around November 17, 2014 is recognized.
However, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is not acceptable, unless there is evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to pay the cost of meals to the plaintiff separately from the price of Jal delivery tree.
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion