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
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion, upon the Defendant’s request, had the seal work paid by the Defendant, and had the seal work. The Plaintiff did not receive 1.3 million won in the price for the Damp points, 300,000 won in the remainder, and 2 million won in the price for Damp, and 2.8 million won in the aggregate from the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserted that, at the G border point, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 1,30,00 from the Defendant on December 4, 2012, 201; December 5, 2012; December 9, 2012; and December 10, 2012.
Considering the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was unable to receive KRW 1.3 million from the Defendant in the judgment of the case violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., which was attached to the Busan District Court 2013 High Court Decision 5828, which was attached to the statement of reasons for appeal, with respect to the Defendant, there is doubt as to whether the Plaintiff did not receive the fees from the Defendant even if having performed the painting work on the above date
However, only the following evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff carried out painting work on the above date at C & C points.
In addition, it is not sufficient to view the price as KRW 1.3 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The plaintiff is unable to submit additional materials to prove his/her assertion.
① According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 (Character), although the plaintiff demanded several times to settle the price to the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's assertion is acknowledged on the ground that the defendant does not have any content to acknowledge it, and that the defendant does not make clear answers.
② No. 2 (Evidence No. 2) merely pertains to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s sealed construction work around 2010 and confirmed as being paid by the Defendant.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.