beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs the Plaintiff’s business and the wholesale and retail business. The Plaintiff was awarded the first priority by participating in the open bid for the instant gift offered to its members in 2015 as an agent of B&D.
Accordingly, on September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff, a representative of B&D Co., Ltd., entered into a contract for the supply of tin gift with the SbS Credit Union, and thereafter, the issues related to the mobilization industry futures set, which were to be supplied, have occurred, and the Plaintiff, a representative of B&D, decided to supply tin gift goods, which were the second priority in the tender for tin gift, and found customers.
Around September 21, 2015, C, an agent of the Defendant, concluded a supply contract with C, a representative of the Defendant, for the destroyed gift gift set forth in C,200 so that the destroyed gift supplied to Symnas in the past was supplied to Symnas Credit Cooperatives, and C, a representative of the Defendant, paid KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant on the same day as the contract deposit, with C, a representative of the Defendant, for the supply of the destroyed gift set forth in C, which is to be supplied to Symnas Credit Cooperatives.
However, on September 22, 2015, before the delivery date of the destroyed gift gift set forth by the Plaintiff, the Defendant heard from the person in charge of the Synas Credit Cooperatives, who was in charge of the Synas Credit Cooperatives, that the Defendant may deliver import destroyed goods or lower goods because it is not able to conduct transactions with Synas and trade with Synas, and it is difficult for the Defendant to do so.
The person in charge of the Sbrid Credit Cooperative confirmed that the Plaintiff and C were not the Defendant supplied the destruction of the SbS, and that C did not properly respond, and that C notified the Plaintiff that C would cancel the contract with B&D.
As above, C, a representative of the defendant, did not have any record of supplying SPS relief to SPFS, thereby deceiving the plaintiff.