beta
Text
1. Defendant C Co., Ltd.: 38,870,841 won, and 5% per annum from January 25, 2018 to September 28, 2018.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 2-1 to Gap evidence 6 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a contract on January 21, 2018 with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Co., Ltd.") to exclusively import and supply the solar net in Korea for two years (hereinafter referred to as "the instant contract"), and the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff supplied the defendant Co., Ltd. with the Defendant Co., Ltd for two years under the instant contract on January 12, 2018, with the net 60 boxes of deceased on January 19, 2018, with the net 600 boxes of deceased on January 19, 2018, with the net 400 boxes of deceased on January 23, 2018, with the net 38,870,841 won of deceased on January 23, 2018, with the delivery net payment date stipulated in Article 5.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company is obligated to pay the above net and purchase price of KRW 38,870,841 and delay damages to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
B. The Defendant Company asserted that the instant sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant D, and the Defendant Company did not participate in the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and the instant sales contract (Evidence A5) was formally prepared, and the Defendant Company did not become a party to the instant sales contract.
However, as long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, it is not allowed to deny the probative value of the disposal document unless there is any special reason to deny the probative value of the disposal document.
It is insufficient to acknowledge special grounds to deny the probative value of the sales contract (Evidence A5) of this case, which is recognized as having been established by only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 submitted by the Defendant Company. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the descriptions No. 9, 11, 14, and 16.