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 parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion falls under KRW 152,60,500, and the amount of goods that the Plaintiff had not been supplied to the Defendant for packaging from June 2010 to December 2010, is at KRW 152,60,500, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 152,60,50 and the delay damages.
B. The defendant's assertion is a corporation established for the health assistance food supply business using the original trademark attachment method, which was proposed by the representative director of A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "A"). The defendant's business was revoked as the production factory was not constructed, and there was no transaction with the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.
2. According to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (Evidence number includes the branch number), the defendant is a corporation incorporated on May 17, 2010 for the purpose of manufacturing, processing and distributing functional foods, health assistance foods, etc., and at the time of incorporation B registered as auditors at the time of incorporation; the plaintiff supplied a box for packing products from June 201 to December 201, 2010 at the request of Eul; Eul issued a promissory note dated 177,60,50 won at par value, and the due date on November 30, 2010 to the plaintiff; Eul recognized the obligation of KRW 17,60,500 on the same day to the plaintiff; and the defendant will provide the plaintiff with the entire obligation of KRW 75,00 on the last day of each month from November 30, 2010 to December 31, 2015; and the defendant will provide the plaintiff with the entire obligation to certify it as security.
“Preparation of a written statement,” and the Plaintiff may be found to have received reimbursement of KRW 25,00,000 from B thereafter, but it is insufficient to recognize that there was a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the supply of a product package box.
Rather, the auditor does not have the authority to conclude a contract on behalf of the company with the other party, as well as the issuer column and the above note.