Text
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Defendant and C have traded agricultural products from around 1998 to around 2018, such as yellow season and sacrylology.
On July 17, 2018 and August 23, 2018, the Defendant supplied a total of KRW 1.3.8 million to C.
C On November 7, 2018, the Defendant supplied 100 boxes of death.
On January 24, 2019, the Plaintiff sent the mobile phone text messages to the Defendant stating that “the Plaintiff shall promptly deposit 100 boxes of death.”
The defendant filed a criminal charge against C on the charge of fraud with the Goyang Branch Office of the Government's High Prosecutors' Office in relation to the amount of remainder of yellow dust. On August 19, 2019 during the criminal investigation process of the above accusation case, the defendant agreed to pay C the amount of KRW 13.8 million by September 16, 2019 and KRW 7.8 million by October 30, 2019. C shall pay the amount of KRW 6.6 million by September 16, 2019. When C pays the amount of KRW 6.6 million by September 16, 2019, the defendant shall not revoke a subsequent criminal complaint with C and the defendant prepared a notarized agreement with respect to the portion of KRW 7.8 million by October 30, 2019 (hereinafter "the agreement in this case"). The agreement in this case was prepared as to the above portion of the loan for consumption agreement in accordance with the agreement in this case (hereinafter "the agreement in this case").
However, C did not perform its obligation to pay money under the instant agreement against the Defendant (the Defendant did not revoke the criminal complaint against C), and on December 11, 2019, the High Court of the Jung-gu District Court issued a summary order of KRW 5 million against C as fraud, and around that time, the above summary order became final and conclusive.
【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the main defense of safety, the defendant is not the plaintiff but C, and therefore the plaintiff seeks to pay the price for the goods against the defendant.