beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s claim is a seller of glass products, and the Defendant is a seller of glass products. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a total of KRW 142,50,296 glass products from January 2014 to April 2015, and received total of KRW 111,770,343 from the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was paid a total of KRW 30,729,953 (=142,50,296 - KRW 111,70,770,343) and delay damages therefrom.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff’s evidence, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge the claim against the Defendant for the purchase of goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.
The evidence Nos. 2 and 6 (General Trading Register by Business Party) and Nos. 3 (Evidence of Contents) submitted by the Plaintiff is merely a document that the Plaintiff can prepare at will, and no other evidence exists that can objectively confirm the transaction volume and unit price between the original Defendant and the original Defendant, such as a written contract and a certificate of acceptance of an order issued by the Defendant, or a certificate of acceptance of an order issued by the Defendant.
The plaintiff did not have any tax treatment such as the return of value-added tax on his claim for the purchase price of goods against the defendant.
The defendant, as the representative director of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”), transacted with the above company as parties to the contract, and the amount of the goods-price claim claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant individual in this case is almost similar to 30,697,029 won (=51,464,102 won - 20,767,073 won) of the remaining goods-price claim amount after the plaintiff exercised the right of offset against E in the relevant civil judgment (Cheongju District Court 2016Na2841).
In light of this, the plaintiff claims for the remaining goods price claim against E to another defendant.