beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that an agricultural company D (hereinafter “D”) that seeks to cultivate mushrooms enter into an agency contract with the following first container delivery places, E (the second container delivery places), and the Masber mushrooms (five seeds) supply places, and the Plaintiff agreed to deliver the mushrooms shipped from China to D and E, and the Defendant, who is proficient in Chinese fishing, decided to import by proxy.
Accordingly, D’s representative, etc. remitted the down payment of KRW 6,00,000 to the account designated by the Defendant in order to receive the first container containing mushrooms, and transferred the balance of USD 1,600,000 from the Defendant (10,890,000 at the exchange rate at that time) to the Defendant, the Plaintiff was fully compensated for the said amount, as it is not good in the situation, such as the brush in the supply of mushrooms.
In addition, E has already remitted KRW 9,00,00 to the account designated by the Defendant to receive the second container containing mushrooms, and E has waived the import of the second container and returned the second container under the agreement of the parties because the status of the fivefolds in the first container is too good.
Ultimately, the Defendant, who was in charge of supplying mushrooms in connection with Chinese exporters, has a total of KRW 24,290,00 (i.e., the remainder of the first container of KRW 6,000,000 for the first container of KRW 10,890,000 for the first container of KRW 1,60,000 for the Defendant’s loan - The Defendant’s second container of KRW 9,00,000 for the second container of KRW 1,60,000 for the second container of KRW 24,290,000 for the damages incurred, and the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff
2. In full view of the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is recognized that the defendant, who was able to Chinese language, introduced Chinese companies at the plaintiff's request and provided information on the account number or remitted money, etc.
However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff is alone.