beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of marine transportation business, etc., and the defendant is a corporation with the purpose of timber processing, sale, and distribution business.
B. C around November 2016, on behalf of E registered as “D”, sent to F the draft of the supply contract for the chips to which the supplier was the Defendant, and then finally sent to F a buyer D and the supplier’s contract for the supply of the chips on December 29, 2016. On behalf of F, H, the husband of the Defendant representative director G, who actually operated the Defendant, sent the said contract to F and affixed the seal to the said contract.
Article 6 of the above contract was finally modified to the effect that "the present supplier shall be supplied in accordance with the standard of the second contract, which is the defendant, and from the third to the third contract, the supplier shall be replaced to I and the execution shall be agreed to supply it as it is without any change to the contract terms and conditions with the defendant so that it can be supplied as the business system of the defendant." This is reflected in F with the explanation that "F is weak to the financial ability of the defendant and I is larger to the defendant and I is a self-phone."
C. On January 1, 2017, E remitted the down payment of KRW 20,00,000 to the Chocheon Agricultural Cooperative’s account under the Defendant’s name. However, on the same day, E received a request from F to change the name of the contracting party in the name of J Company from the Defendant in the name of J Company, and then drafted again the supply contract for chip as the J Company between F and F on January 2, 2017.
F on its behalf on December 2, 2016, the JJ signed a marine transportation contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on a transportation charge of the total of 5,000 tons of Postal chips at KRW 45,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the maritime transport from Paragraph 45,00,000 (value-added tax), but on the agreed date of transport, the goods cannot be loaded because of the lack of the price of chips on the agreed date, the Plaintiff’s 40,000,000.