beta
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
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the bring-type business in Jeonnam-do D, and the Defendant is a person who runs the bring-type wholesale and retail business with the trade name “F” in Jeonnam-do E.
B. On May 30, 2018, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with a full-time uniform of KRW 1,750 km equivalent to KRW 3589,00 as indicated below (hereinafter “instant full-time uniform”).
C. On May 30, 2018, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a detailed statement of purchase and transaction (hereinafter “detailed statement of purchase and transaction”) as follows with respect to the instant pre-sale.
G MH I JJ L N (based on recognition), absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff asserts that the purchaser of the previous uniforms of this case is the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the purchaser of the previous uniforms of this case is J and himself was only a broker.
B. The question of who is the party to the relevant legal doctrine is the interpretation of the party involved in the contract.
If the parties agree with each other, the parties to the contract shall be determined according to their intention.
However, if the intention of the parties is not consistent, it should be determined on the basis of which person was the party to the contract if the reasonable person is the party to the contract.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da237691, Sept. 10, 2019).
Judgment
In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the parties to a contract for the sale and purchase of the instant uniform as J in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the facts and macroscopic evidence as seen above, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments.
① The Plaintiff stated that he was aware of the Defendant prior to the provision of the instant uniform to the Defendant, and was issued a letter of F located in E from the Defendant, and the Defendant’s place of business.