beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 1-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, and 1-2, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of goods priceing KRW 4,50,370 (=3,252,920), and damages for delay thereof, under the trade name of “D”, to the Defendant who operates the business of manufacturing a branch of the branch of the body.
B. On November 15, 201, the Defendant asserts that there was no fact that there was no supply from the Plaintiff of the powder-making product amounting to KRW 1,253,450.
On May 14, 2014, the defendant submitted a written confirmation of facts as to the production of the above E, while the actual operator of the "D" in the written reply and the written statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the court of first instance, as of May 14, 2014, did not know at all about the supply of the stamped products, and the above written confirmation (Evidence No. 1) is submitted as documentary evidence. In light of the fact that the above written confirmation states that there was a fact that the plaintiff was supplied with the goods of the body of body equivalent to KRW 1,253,450 from the plaintiff around November 15, 201, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that the fact that the defendant received the goods of the body of body from the plaintiff can be sufficiently recognized, and thus, the defendant's defense is not accepted.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.
A. On January 20, 2012, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff repaid KRW 2,00,000 out of the amount of goods paid to the Plaintiff on January 20, 2012, and thus, the Defendant transferred KRW 2,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff on January 20, 2012 does not have any dispute between the parties, and there is no other evidence to deem that there was any transactional relationship other than the supply of the goods by the Plaintiff and the Defendant on January 20, 200. (The Plaintiff is the price for the supply of the goods by the headquarters as above.)