beta
Text
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) 78,506,235 won and its relation to the Plaintiff, from September 26, 2014 to January 26, 2015.
Reasons
1. The fact of recognition is 【Evidence 1-1, 2, Defendant D’s personal examination result, and the purport of the entire argument is that the Plaintiff is a stock company with the primary purpose of wholesale business. Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) is a stock company with the objective of collecting paper cups and recycling materials, and Defendant D carries on the business of supplying it to the manufacturing company of fEc-type cups with the primary purpose of “E” in the name of “E.”
2. The parties' assertion
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (A) supplied the goods to Defendant B and received the goods payment from Defendant B as of September 25, 2014. The remainder of the goods payment as of September 25, 2014 is KRW 78,506,235.
(B) Defendant B did not request the Plaintiff to purchase the original land or pay the price of the goods due to the supply of the original land to the Plaintiff.
Defendant B supplied the raw materials that Defendant B had been crypted from Defendant D, and paid the printing processing cost and the raw materials to Defendant D.
(2) The judgment of this court (A) is based on the following facts in light of Gap 1-1-3, Gap 2-5, Gap 1-1-4, Gap 7-1 through 4, Gap 9-1-3, Eul 4, Eul 5-1, Eul 5-2, witness F testimony, citizen bank, Korean bank, and corporate bank, and the results of each inquiry into facts in relation to Gap 1-1 to 3, Gap 2-5, Eul 6-1 through 4, Eul 9-1 through 3, Eul 5-1, Eul
1) Defendant D, while receiving delivery of raw materials from the Plaintiff, received a crypt manufacturer’s request for cryping from the crypt manufacturer, and received the cryting processing cost from the crypt manufacturer. 2) Defendant D claimed the cryting processing cost and the cryting processing cost to Defendant B. However, Defendant C, a inside director of Defendant B, concluded a direct contract with the agent on the ground that the crypt price was crypted. As such, Defendant C, the crypt director of the Plaintiff Company, had the crypted the crypt price directly with the Plaintiff’s representative director G around June 201, and immediately paid the crypt supply.