beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that the defendant, as evidence submitted by the court of first instance, lent only the name of the goods consignment sales contract to B, and the plaintiff also knew of the fact of the name lending as well. The court's rejection of each statement of evidence Nos. 9 through 10 is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the judgment as mentioned in paragraph (2) below with regard to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant asserts that on June 1, 2009, the plaintiff entered into a consignment contract with the plaintiff to sell the goods manufactured by the plaintiff on consignment and did not enter into a sales contract with the plaintiff on the above goods. Thus, the defendant did not have an obligation to pay the plaintiff the price for the goods not yet sold among the goods supplied by the plaintiff.
The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken into account the overall purport of pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence 2, 6, and Eul evidence 2, namely, the defendant, at the time of commencing the operation of Eul on June 1, 2009, entered into a consignment contract with the plaintiff on a certain quantity of specific goods and consigned the goods, but thereafter, the defendant appears to have changed the transaction method by again purchasing the goods from the plaintiff and selling them to a third party, and Article 2 of the consignment sales contract (Evidence 6) entered into on June 1, 2009 between the plaintiff and the defendant, stating that "B (referring to the defendant) shall purchase the remainder of the consignment goods at the end of the contract period." The defendant himself recognized that he purchased various kinds of musical instruments from the plaintiff during the transaction period with the plaintiff (from June 1, 2009 to December 7, 2011).