beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance are as follows: the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order is the day following the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order sought by the plaintiff; and with respect to the Defendant’s assertion on the actual parties to the instant goods supply contract, which is emphasized by the trial court, the following is added, except for the addition of the “additional Judgment” as to the Defendant’s assertion on the actual parties to the instant goods supply contract, the evidence submitted by the Defendant at the trial and the testimony of the witness B and C at the trial are identical to the reasons for the first trial, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Additional determination
A. From October 2014 to October 2015, the Defendant’s assertion that the industrial films (hereinafter “instant goods”) equivalent to KRW 678,590,00 (including value-added tax) were supplied from the Plaintiff to A (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and traded with the Nonparty Company, such as being notified by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was merely aware of the relevant transaction details for the issuance of the tax invoice after the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company was conducted between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company, without participating in the instant goods transaction. The Defendant again delivered the amount transferred to the Plaintiff on the same day after receiving the payment from the Nonparty Company. Since the Defendant paid KRW 10,000 to the Plaintiff around the same day, not the instant goods price, but the advance payment under the discretionary processing contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant is not a formal party to the instant goods supply contract and the actual party to the instant goods supply contract is the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company.
B. According to the Defendant’s assertion, the non-party company notified the Plaintiff of the place where the goods were supplied, and accordingly, the Plaintiff delivered the goods to that place.
Even if this is applicable, the defendant and the non-party company.