beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The defendant is a person who operates a restaurant with the trade name "C" in the Yangsan City B and 2.
B. The Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the Defendant from September 1, 201 to June 10, 2014, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,494,000 out of the liquor price for the said period.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 2,494,000 won and damages for delay payable to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the total amount of the subsidies that the Plaintiff agreed to pay to the Defendant (i.e., the total amount of KRW 1,194,000,000,000,000,000,000 for alcoholic beverages 5,000 won on March 12, 2011) and the Plaintiff’s D’s total amount of alcoholic beverage payment agreed to offset the amount of alcoholic beverage sales paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff for sales promotion, etc. is KRW 2,494,00,00, and that the amount of alcoholic beverage sales that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff is no longer remaining.
Then, it is difficult to believe that only the defendant signed on the part of the plaintiff as stated in the evidence Nos. 1-2 (Evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 (Evidence Nos. 1-2) and that it is in a relationship with the plaintiff ( even if the plaintiff recognized that it was the plaintiff, it is unclear whether the support was included in the liquor price of this case that the defendant should pay or whether it was supported separately from the above liquor price), and Eul No. 2 (Evidence No. 2) already retired from office and were not in an employment relationship with the plaintiff on June 26, 2014 (the evidence No. 7 shows that D would retire on June 10, 2014) and its content is also insufficient to recognize that D himself/herself agreed to offset the amount equivalent to the above amount by the liquor price of this case.