beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a distribution company that provides goods to convenience stores, etc., and the Defendant is a person who operates the “C convenience store” in Kimpo-si B, and the Plaintiff supplied goods to the convenience store operated by the Defendant by May 11, 2016.
B. On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff (D in charge) and the Defendant decided to settle the outstanding amount remaining after the Defendant returned some of the goods to the Plaintiff at KRW 449,807, and the Defendant deposited the said money by the Defendant. The Plaintiff Company D drafted a deposit certificate (No. 1) attesting that the payment for the goods was made to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, witness D's partial testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that the goods were supplied to the Defendant in total amounting to KRW 4,929,906. The Defendant returned the goods up to KRW 932,931, and paid KRW 3,181,210 as the price for the goods. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 815,765 as the price for the remaining goods.
3. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire pleadings to each of the above evidence, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant appear to have continued conflict in relation to the return of goods supplied by the Plaintiff, ② the Plaintiff and the Defendant settled the outstanding amount by returning and disposing of the remaining goods on July 26, 2016, ② the Defendant deposited 449,807 won immediately and terminated the transaction with the Plaintiff; ③ Furthermore, the Defendant prepared a deposit certificate to the effect that D, a person in charge of the Plaintiff, is fully paid the outstanding amount in order to eliminate the dispute over the return and settlement of the outstanding amount. ④ In light of the fact that the head of the sales office submitted by the Plaintiff was unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff and the head of the sales office was not supported by objective evidence, and thus, it is difficult to believe it as it is.