beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In light of the facts without dispute, the entire purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9 through 11 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff is a company selling general steel products and tools. The defendant is engaged in the business of maintaining and repairing plants in E in the trade name of "D" from December 2013 to February 4, 2014, and the plaintiff supplied various kinds of tools, such as factorings worth KRW 94,77,375 to the defendant from December 23, 2013 to February 4, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "supply of the goods in this case").
B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 94,777,375 won for the above goods and delay damages to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of deduction of advance payment
A. The Defendant asserts that, on December 17, 2013, F Company, the Defendant’s father, paid KRW 20,000 to the Plaintiff on December 17, 2013, and the above KRW 20,000,000, which is an advance payment for the supply of the instant goods, should be deducted from the price of the said goods. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 20,000,000, which the Plaintiff received from the Defendant, is not an advance payment for the supply of the instant goods, but rather for the payment of the unpaid goods that the Defendant assumed by the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “B”), and thus, it is not necessary to deduct the Defendant from the price of the goods that the Plaintiff should pay to the Plaintiff.
(b)In full view of the facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 7, 12 to 15, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 7, and 8, and the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial, the following facts may be acknowledged.
① On December 17, 2013, F Company paid KRW 20,000,00 to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant. ② The Defendant was engaged in the same kind of business as the Defendant around December 2013.