beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells ready-mixed, and the Defendant is a contractor for the construction of the Gwangju Northern-gu C Building as a construction company, and B is a person who has been awarded a subcontract for the said construction from the Defendant.
B. On August 18, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to supply 39,411,020 won (including value-added tax) in total from 816 cubic meters to 39,41,020 cubic meters at the site of the new construction project (hereinafter “instant contract for the supply of goods”).
C. B entered into the instant goods supply contract, in the order column, the order column entered “Seongnam-gun D”, “mutual A” and “representative E”, and in the joint and several sureties column, “ Address Dong-gu, Gwangju-si FB/D” and “Name B” respectively.
Under the above contract, the Plaintiff supplied ready-mixed at the above construction site from August 19, 2008 to March 11, 2009. The price for the goods that the Plaintiff had not received as of March 12, 2009 is KRW 11,134,180.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the main number of evidence), and the purport of the whole pleadings. 2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was <1> the defendant was obligated to pay the price of the goods to the plaintiff as a party to the contract as a party to the contract, and <2> even if the defendant is not a party to the contract, the defendant is responsible for the expression agency's act, and 3) even if the defendant was not liable for the expression agency's act, the defendant is aware of the above facts and reported the tax invoice for the above ready-mixed as a purchase material of value-added tax as a truster under the Commercial Act.
3. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s proof No. 4, which seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s above assertion, is difficult to believe in light of the Plaintiff’s statement No. 1-1, and evidence No. 3 and No. 6.