beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasons why this court is stated in this part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the basic facts and the defendant's main safety defense are as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the defendant's "the defendant" at the end of 2.7 pages of the judgment of
(Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Judgment on the merits
A. Plaintiff 1’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff entered into a contract with Plaintiff from around 2009 to March 2016 to entrusting all of the imported cargo with customs clearance, quarantine, and transport, and there was no fact that the Defendant entered into a cargo transport contract with Defendant. Defendant 2 wants to confirm that there was no obligation to pay the freight charges to Defendant. Defendant was requested from Plaintiff A during the period of 2014, but the Plaintiff entered into a cargo transport contract with the Plaintiff from around 2015 to the Plaintiff and issued the tax invoice in the name of the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff, a contracting party, is obligated to pay KRW 53,124,500 to the Defendant from July 15, 2015 to March 16, 2016.
B. Determination 1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the Plaintiff, who is the debtor, denies the fact of the cause of the obligation by specifying a claim first, the Defendant, the obligee, bears the burden of proving the facts of the legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). In this case, the Defendant, claiming the existence of a transport charge, bears the burden of proving the establishment of a transport contract and the scope of the transport charge. 2) The Defendant issued a tax invoice from January 2015 with the Plaintiff as the recipient from January 31, 205; the Defendant registered the Plaintiff’s results of the freight transport on July 31, 2015; the Plaintiff’s account in the Defendant’s name; and the Plaintiff’s account on November 22, 2015; or the Plaintiff’s account on November 5, 2015; or there is no dispute between the parties to the contract and the deposited amount of KRW 30,540,15.
3, however, Gap 6, 7, 15, and 4.