beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance cited in the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it is also accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on additional charges
A. The Plaintiff asserts that, with respect to the claim for the purchase price or the agreed amount (the prime claim), the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 285 million, which the Plaintiff sought, among the agreed amount of KRW 299,030,043 or the agreed amount of USD 385,506 for the purchase price of the goods in 2014 (hereinafter “$”) on the premise that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the original supply with the Defendant even at the time of the trial.
In addition, the Plaintiff’s delivery of the original team to the Defendant and C’s “J”, the Defendant, etc. paid the cost of goods, sold the original team supplied by the Plaintiff to Mexico, and distributed profits therefrom to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, which served as the basis for the claim for the agreed amount, asserted that the document is a document prepared by the Defendant, in light of the e-mail sent by the Defendant after the date of its preparation, the Kakao Stockholm text message sent by the Plaintiff, and the KS of the “Emith (hereinafter “E”) of the Chinese original exporter’s “E”) around December 2014.
However, even upon examining the evidence Nos. 18 and 19 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the evidence Nos. 28, 29, 31 through 34, and 36 of the Plaintiff’s additionally submitted at the trial, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay USD 385,506 to the Plaintiff, on the ground of the e-mail that “the Defendant would send USD 310,000 to K, or would transfer the books or money to the Plaintiff, or would transfer the borrowed money to the Plaintiff.”
Rather, No. 6, and No. 1.