logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.13 2015나592
물품대금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff Company is a wholesaler of alcoholic beverages, and the Defendant is a person who operates a restaurant in the name of "C" in the name of "C", and the Defendant was supplied with alcoholic beverages, such as liquor and beer, from D to April 24, 2013 by the business director D of the Plaintiff Company.

B. D had been working as a business employee in a number of liquor wholesale markets, and around October 201, around KRW 180,000,000, including attempted bonds, ices, and freezings, against the customer instead of acquiring 10% of the share of the Plaintiff Company, were employed by the Plaintiff Company as a condition that the Plaintiff Company transfer the amount of KRW 180,000 to the Plaintiff Company, and has been in charge of the business of the Defendant and other customers.

C. The transaction and collection method of the Plaintiff Company: (a) fixed price with a profit of 6-7% from the liquor producer is set at the ex-factory price; and (b) if sales employees such as D receive an order of alcoholic beverages from the customer, the Plaintiff Company supplied alcoholic beverages to the customer through D and other sales employees; and (c) sales employees such as D, etc. supplied the ordered alcoholic beverages to the customer, and immediately received payment by the liquor card or the sales employees received money directly from the customer or transferred them to the sales account in the Plaintiff Company’s account after being transferred to the sales partner’s account.

D, however, the Plaintiff Company did not deposit the amount of approximately KRW 40 million to KRW 50 million, among alcoholic beverages paid by the Customer around April 2013, and the amount of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff Company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff company did not receive KRW 893,979 from the defendant.

In this regard, the defendant only traded with D and there is no transaction relation with the plaintiff company, and the total amount of alcoholic beverages supplied to D.

arrow