beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim for the payment of the pesticide price supplied to C in 2015 and 2016
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Ginseng Distribution D (hereinafter “D”) located in Chungcheongnam-si and the Ginseng Distribution (hereinafter “Etripo”); and (b) located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-si; and (c) each of the above Sampo-si is owned by the Defendant.
Upon receipt of C’s order from the Defendant, the Plaintiff supplied each pesticide equivalent to KRW 13,152,40 from April 25, 2015 to June 22, 2016, and KRW 48,312,50 from May 20, 2015 to May 30, 2016, respectively.
The defendant is obligated to pay the above pesticide price to the plaintiff for the following reasons:
① The Defendant promised to pay the purchase price of agricultural chemicals supplied to the Plaintiff for each of the instant notes.
② In relation to the EP, the Defendant entered into a trade agreement with C to create ginseng distribution, and since C is insolvent among its members, the Defendant is obligated to pay the pesticide price, which is a partnership obligation, pursuant to Article 713 of the Civil Act.
③ Around March 22, 2015, the Defendant purchased D 3,000 won per square day from C and at the same time paid to C management expenses. Since the above management expenses do not include the pesticide price, the Defendant is obligated to pay the pesticide price to the Plaintiff.
B. 1) First of all, we examine whether the Defendant promised to pay the purchase price of agricultural chemicals supplied to the Plaintiff for each of the instant notes, and consider the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8, and witness C’s testimony, as well as the statement in the evidence No. 4-1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above commitment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Next, the Epos contract concluded between the Defendant and C (hereinafter “instant contract”).