beta
Text
The part of the judgment below against the defendant, excluding the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment, shall be reversed.
Reasons
1. As to the grounds of appeal on the claim for the merchandise coupon price and exchange fee
A. As to the first ground in its holding, the lower court held that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 154,251,50, and exchange fee of KRW 11,274,00 and exchange fee of KRW 11,274,00, based on the following premise: (a) Party 1 and 2 (collection Details) recorded electronically in the quantity of merchandise coupon delivery and storage, on the grounds of the most objective and accurate basis for the transaction of merchandise coupons between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on which the Plaintiff and the Defendant should determine the quantity of merchandise coupons deposited and withdrawn between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the basis of the most objective and accurate basis; and (b) Party 1 is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of merchandise
B. However, examining each of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 14-1 and 2, which are used as the basis for the volume of merchandise coupon entry and delivery among the plaintiff and the defendant from January 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007, the court below acknowledged the fact that the sum of the amount of merchandise coupon deposited by the defendant to the plaintiff during the above period is a total of 2,838,546, even if considering the quantity of the plaintiff's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder's holder.
Such a difference is deemed due to the fact that the court below erred in recognizing the quantity by suffering from the court below based on the Gap evidence No. 106, which was prepared and submitted by omitting part of the quantity by suffering from the above evidence, and there is no reasonable ground to omit a certain quantity.
Therefore, the court below erred by violating the rules of evidence or recognizing facts against logical and empirical rules, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.