beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 1,708,800 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from October 30, 2014 to September 7, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 1, 2013, the Defendant entered into a car-to-door sales agreement with Amoto-door sales company (hereinafter “Amoto-door sales”) and supplied goods from Amoto-door sales. The Defendant door-to-door sales was supplied with goods from Amoto-door sales.
B. From August 1, 2013 to August 1, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a company’s comprehensive financial insurance contract with the intent to pay insurance proceeds in the event that a loss occurs due to the act of an employee, such as an employment-related employee, such as the insurance limit of KRW 7,00,000, and door-to-door seller.
C. From September 6, 2013 to March 24, 2014, the traffic supplied goods of KRW 11,340,000 to the Defendant. The Defendant claimed that an insured incident occurred due to payment of only KRW 7,604,00 among them, and that the Defendant did not pay the remainder, and that the Plaintiff claimed insurance money of KRW 3,736,00 ( KRW 11,340,000 - KRW 7,604,000).
On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,145,265 as insurance proceeds, excluding the monthly total amount of goods and the monthly tax invoice issued on October 29, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Of the goods equivalent to KRW 11,340,00, which claimed that the traffic volume for determination was supplied to the Defendant from September 6, 2013 to March 24, 2014, the goods equivalent to KRW 2,027,20, among the goods equivalent to KRW 11,340,000, are insufficient to recognize the fact that the goods were supplied to the Defendant, only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4 and 7 (including the virtual number), and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.
Thus, during the above period, the graphics supplied goods of KRW 9,312,800 ( KRW 11,340,000 - KRW 2,027,200) to the defendant. According to the evidence above, the defendant can be found to have paid KRW 7,604,00 to the traffic.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the price for the goods of KRW 1,708,80 ( KRW 9,312,800- KRW 7,604,00) to the traffic, and the Plaintiff.