beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to pay under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and
Reasons
1. There is no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition, or the defendant's writing of the name of the defendant stated in Gap's sales slips and the above sales slips (the paper of the defendant's name stated in the above sales slips and the paper of the defendant's name stated in the outer surface of the mail bags used by the defendant on December 2, 2014 (the paper of the litigation records No. 49) and the whole purport of the arguments in light of the whole purport of the arguments as a whole, since both are recognized as the same pen, the authenticity of the above sales slips is presumed to have been established) and the whole purport of the arguments stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including each number).
The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with oil equivalent to KRW 12,724,140 for three years from December 29, 2008 to September 28, 201, which is a business operator operating a D gas station in Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, and for three years from September 28, 201.
B. When receiving oil from the Plaintiff, the Defendant entered the name and amount of the oil purchased in the sales slip directly, and paid the price to the Plaintiff from time to time.
C. On April 18, 201, the sales slips signed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on April 18, 201, the amount of the outstanding payment is indicated as KRW 4,489,140, and the Defendant signed on the said outstanding payment portion.
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the amount of oil that the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff shall be KRW 4,489,140. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the said amount of oil not paid after September 28, 201 and damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff.
B. The defendant's assertion argues that since the specification of transactions (Evidence A1 and 2) presented by the plaintiff as evidence is false in light of the omission of the oil price paid up to the past, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with, and even if not, the amount paid by the defendant should be excluded.
(B) On September 21, 2012, the Defendant 61,00 won to the Plaintiff on September 21, 2012.