beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) entered into a contract with the Defendant on a water purifier siren with the effect that, in the event the Defendant delays the payment of the monthly sirens at least three times, the Defendant would lose the benefit of the deadline and shall pay the remainder of the contract, and the Defendant would pay the delayed damages for the delayed payment of the monthly sirens at the place designated by the Defendant. The Defendant installed the water purifier at the place designated by the Defendant. Since the Defendant used the said water purifiers, the Defendant did not pay the sirens after November 20, 2013, notwithstanding implied approval of the said contract.
However, on January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the claim against the Defendant from C, and notified the Defendant of the fact of transferring the claim on behalf of C, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff delay damages for the amount of KRW 1,264,55, including the sum of KRW 597,291, and the late payment damages from February 21, 2014 to November 10, 2018, including KRW 667,264, and the late payment damages for delay from February 21, 2014 to November 10, 2018.
2. As to whether there was a siren contract between the Plaintiff and C on May 1, 2012 between the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant contests the establishment of the authenticity of the evidence No. 3, which is a siren contract between C and the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff, who is the person who submitted the said document, should prove the authenticity of the said document.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the entry of the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the writing of the Defendant’s signature stated in the evidence No. 3 is different from the Defendant’s other writing.
Therefore, the evidence No. 3 cannot be admitted as evidence because the authenticity cannot be admitted, and the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was concluded on May 1, 2012 between C and the Defendant, or the Defendant.