beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
First of all, the plaintiff asserts that he entered into a contract for the supply and supervision of goods with the defendant, and the sum of the goods price (24.5 million won) and the supervision cost (3.5 million won) are sought.
However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the contract of the plaintiff's assertion was concluded between the original defendant only with each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, in full view of the written evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the result of the fact-finding of the court's subordinate statute of limitations, the defendant concluded a franchise store agreement with the company, and opened the "Seng Sin-si" in the Sin-si. It can be known that the defendant concluded a contract for construction work with EEN21 (one legal entity; hereinafter referred to as "Ennn-si"), and the counter-party to the plaintiff's assertion can be seen as Den-si, not the defendant, but the party to the contract.
Next, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant should return unjust enrichment equivalent to the price of the goods because the defendant was supplied with the goods, such as furniture, without any reason. However, the above evidence of the plaintiff's submission alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was supplied with the goods from the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
(O) As seen earlier, the Defendant merely received the performance of human rights from Den in accordance with a contract with Denn and cannot be deemed to have received unjust enrichment by the Defendant. Since the Plaintiff appears to have supplied goods to Den, the Plaintiff is deemed to have received unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against Den inasmuch as it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to have received the goods to be supplied to Den, it is reasonable to claim the relevant payment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed as it is without merit.