beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) from March 2014 to June 2015, 2015, the Plaintiff sold a total of 120 scooterss (the supply price per container is KRW 51,00,000) to the Defendants on five occasions (one time means one container (24 container)); and (b) the price is KRW 255,00,000 in total.
However, since the Defendants paid only KRW 102,734,00 to the Plaintiff with D Scooter’s price, the unpaid amount is KRW 152,266,00 (=25,000,000-102,734,000).
From May 2013 to July 2014, the Plaintiff sold D D D D D D D musicalians over 11 times to the Defendants, and the sum of the price is KRW 106,737,206.
However, since the Defendants paid only KRW 87,896,175 to the Plaintiff with the purchase price in bad faith, the unpaid amount is KRW 18,841,031 (=106,737,206-87,896,175).
Therefore, the Defendants (the same business relationship) are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 171,107,031 (i.e., D Scooter’s price of KRW 152,266,00 (18,841,031) and damages for delay.
2. E, an individual enterprise, and the Plaintiff Company are separate enterprises.
The Defendants asserted that they traded with personal companies E, other than the Plaintiff Company. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (as of Section A4-7, etc.) is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff Company sold each of the goods of this case to the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
B 1 [No evidence that it is deemed that the certificate was forged, as alleged by the Plaintiff, on the sale of DBC and DBS
(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased and sold the Plaintiff Company’s purchase from the Plaintiff Company E, but such assertion appears to be equivalent to the content of Section B 1). The Plaintiff did not issue sales tax invoices to F [the Plaintiff is an Otoba-related business entity registered in the name of Defendant C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C”) (see the fourth pleading protocol of this case). The import of each of the instant goods was an individual E, not the Plaintiff Company.