logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.04.21 2016나56950
물품대금
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation whose main business is to sell food and food materials, supplied food materials to a restaurant in the name of “C” operated by the Defendant, and supplied food materials to the restaurant in which the Defendant’s business was closed from October 15, 2012 to June 25, 2015.

B. While trading food materials with the Plaintiff, the Defendant fully repaid the price for the food materials supplied to “D” at the time of supply of the food materials, or in such a way as to reimburse the price after the supply of the materials.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that "the defendant is obligated to pay 12,310,550 won for food materials and delay damages to the plaintiff, since he/she decided to take over B's obligation to pay food materials costs with the start of "D" around October 15, 2012," the defendant is obligated to pay 12,310,550 won for food materials costs and delay damages."

However, the testimony of the witness E and the witness F of the first instance trial corresponding thereto is difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances, and each statement of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including the number of branch numbers) is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① It is difficult to find any particular reason to start transactions with the Plaintiff even when the Defendant assumed the Defendant’s obligation.

② While the Defendant appears to have paid food materials supplied to “D” in the course of performing a transaction with the Plaintiff for a period of two years, the Defendant cannot find objective data that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the Defendant’s obligation under B.

③ The “C” and the “D” operated by the Defendant are different from the trade name and location of the place of business, and it is difficult to recognize the identity of the business.

④ The Plaintiff indicated “D” as “D (G) source while delivering food materials.” The Defendant also stated as “D” on the trading list indicating that the amount including B’s debt is “D balance” and “satisfy balance.”

arrow