beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a goods supply contract with the Defendant operating indoor building business with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant supplied various kinds of paintings and hygiene utensils at the indoor building site that the Defendant continued from July 2012 to June 2013. However, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 22,744,150 to the present day. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the price of the goods and damages for delay.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted to the effect that he received incentives for business operations from the representative D of “C”, and was in the position of an employee in charge of business and field, not a representative operating “C”, and is not a party to a contract entered into with the Plaintiff for goods supply contract.
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the defendant was present in the name of "C" and presented it to the plaintiff. It is recognized that the defendant deposited 4 million won, which is part of the goods price, to the plaintiff in the name of the defendant.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of arguments to the statements in Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4, namely, the representative of Eul is Eul who is not the defendant, and the actual construction contracts, etc. were concluded in D name, the representative of the plaintiff, and the defendant appears to have been aware of the defendant's status to be the person in charge of the business, and the defendant paid 4 million won to the plaintiff, but it is persuasive in the defendant's assertion that the defendant paid 4 million won to the plaintiff, which was maintained by maintaining the contractual relationship, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant succeeded to the status of the goods supply contract of this case only because the defendant partly repaid his/her obligation.