beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties’ assertion asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 7,150,00 (i.e., KRW 150,000 - KRW 5 million) since it was supplied to C by the Defendant on September 20, 2014 upon receiving a request from the Defendant for a gold production for the new bottom of the launch.
The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff may not claim the payment to D, who is not the plaintiff, because it is merely a person who received a sub-subcontract from D.
2. According to the evidence No. 3, the Defendant’s transfer of KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff’s passbook on September 12, 2014, including KRW 2 million and KRW 3 million on September 16, 2014, to the Plaintiff’s passbook.
We examine whether the person who requested the production of gold to the Plaintiff is not the defendant or D.
In the original complaint, the Plaintiff’s representative E in the preparatory brief dated March 3, 2016, and in this court, there is no consistency in claiming that the Plaintiff received each request from D, and in this court, the recipient of the work instruction (Evidence A2) is indicated as “C” and the sender is indicated as “Defendant”, and the name and telephone number of F is indicated on the right upper end of the work instruction order, and the Plaintiff asserted that F was determined as F as the partner of the Defendant’s representative director G at the Defendant’s office, but there is no evidence to see that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to produce the gold production, and solely on such circumstance, there is no evidence to recognize that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to produce the gold production, and the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff remitted five million won to the Plaintiff upon D’s request, and there is no evidence to support that the remainder of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to support that the Defendant, not the Plaintiff, made the gold production.
The plaintiff's claim of this case from different views is added.