beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid a gold of KRW 6,192,880 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related thereto from July 1, 2013 to August 29, 2014.
Reasons
1. 기초 사실 원고는 ‘C'라는 상호로 치킨류 및 닭꼬치 관련 육가공품을 판매하는 개인사업자이고, 피고는 ’D‘이라는 상호로 축산물의 도소매업을 하는 개인사업자인 사실은 원고와 피고 사이에 다툼이 없거나, 을 제2호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있다.
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. 1) The main point of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from the tort is the Plaintiff’s assertion that this part of claim is the cause of claim. Although the Defendant intended to supply the Plaintiff with salted cat to the domestic catus, which is a refined goods, the Defendant deceiving the Plaintiff as a domestic catus, and supplied the Plaintiff with salted cat on the freezing, which is the equipment. The price of the frozen cat, which is the equipment, is only
B) Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages in the amount of KRW 20,125,908 equivalent to 40% of the amount of goods between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, by deceiving the Plaintiff, that the Defendant supplied the frozen chickens, which is the equipment from February 2013 to the end of June 2013. Accordingly, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (including the temporary number). Furthermore, even if the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with the equipment to the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to support the Plaintiff’s assertion in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant deceiving the Plaintiff, instead of the domestic chill, supplied the said equipment to the Plaintiff; and (b) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (including the temporary number). Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Even if considering the circumstances alleged in the Plaintiff’s evidence, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the entire chickens supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff during the period from February 2, 2013 to June 2013, is about 40% of the cat price of the catus, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
C. Therefore, the plaintiff's ground of claim on different premise is that of this part.