beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an exclusive sales agreement with Defendant and D, E, F, and G on “C”. On January 13, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay 10,000 won per unit price of 19,893 won per unit price. On February 2, 2015 and February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied 10,000 won each of the above products to the Defendant. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 100,000 out of KRW 397,860,000 in total, and KRW 397,860,000 in total, and KRW 85,00 in total, and KRW 100,000 in total,00 in total,00 per unit price of 19,893 in total.
B. On December 21, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with cosmetics equivalent to KRW 9,761,075, and the Defendant did not pay the said amount to the Plaintiff.
C. In addition, the Defendant did not issue the above orders to the Plaintiff, and D et al. issued each of the above orders to the Plaintiff.
Even if the defendant is the plaintiff, the defendant is the defendant.
liability under the partnership agreement with the State, the
(a) and (b)
(d) is responsible as the principal and as the nominal holder of the name in respect of this subsection.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of 307,621,075 won (297,860,000 won) and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant, D, E, F, and G (hereinafter "the defendant, etc.") with respect to "C" price
(C) On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s product “C” (hereinafter “instant product”).
(i) the exclusive contract for sale for export (hereinafter referred to as “instant exclusive contract”)
(2) The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc. agreed on the supply of the instant product at the time of the instant monopoly contract is acknowledged. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc. agreed on the supply of the instant product, such as the unit price and quantity, etc. of the instant product. Thus, solely on the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc. concluded the instant monopoly contract, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant, etc. ordered 10,000 of the instant product to the Plaintiff.
In addition, the Plaintiff.