beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows: (a) adding the judgment of the defendant on the grounds for appeal to the following 2; and (b) excluding the following 3, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) citing it by the main sentence
2. Additional determination
A. Determination 1 on the defense that the Defendant had implied consent on the assumption of an obligation with immunity) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant entered into a fishery products supply contract with the Plaintiff and supplied fishery products until the end of May 2016, but at the time of the Defendant’s representative G was suspended from the Defendant from June 2016 to the Defendant’s franchisor E (E) (hereinafter “E”).
A) A business integration was decided. Accordingly, E left the Defendant’s existing obligation to the Plaintiff and continued to engage in the supply of goods to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant agreed to refrain from the subsequent transaction with the Plaintiff, thereby accepting the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the goods to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was well aware of the aforementioned circumstances with a sufficient explanation from the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff, upon entering and using the transaction details with the Defendant in the existing customer ledger with the Defendant, had impliedly agreed on the assumption of the obligation between the Defendant and E, such as the Defendant’s failure to claim for the payment of the goods once before the instant lawsuit was filed. Accordingly, the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the goods to the Plaintiff was extinguished due to the Defendant’s exemption from liability, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone, taken over the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the goods to the Plaintiff.
It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff impliedly consented to the assumption of obligation between the Defendant and E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.
(b) Determination on the defenses of designated appropriations 1.