beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, the fact that the Plaintiff was transferred KRW 10,000,000 out of the claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant from B (hereinafter “instant claim for the purchase price of goods”) on June 12, 2016, and that B notified the Defendant of the transfer of the claim on June 24, 2016.
2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim
A. The plaintiff asserts that B had no price for goods that was supplied to the defendant, and the plaintiff received 110,000,000 won out of the claim for the price for the goods of this case from B.
The Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the price for the goods to B, and even if the Defendant had the obligation to pay the price for the goods, C already lost the right to dispose of the claim for the price for the goods. Therefore, even if B transferred part of the claim for the price for the goods to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could not acquire the claim for the price for the goods.
B. Determination 1) As to whether the Defendant has the obligation to pay for the goods to B, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant has the obligation to pay for the goods to B by itself as a claim for the price for the goods against the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant has the obligation to pay for the goods. Rather, evidence of subparagraphs B through B (including the serial number) includes the serial number.
Each entry includes the following circumstances, namely, ① the submission of tax invoices or related books to the effect that the Defendant has a claim for the price of goods to be paid to B; ② on January 29, 2016, B issued an electronic tax invoice that supplied the Defendant with the supply price of more than KRW 176,000,000 to the Defendant, and immediately issued the revised electronic tax invoice on the same day on the grounds that it is double issuance by mistake.