beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is a company aimed at manufacturing and selling cosmetics, and that is, the cosmetic will export cosmetics to D engaged in business in China through introduction by C. After concluding a delegation contract on behalf of the defendant and C to conclude and implement the relevant goods transaction contract, the plaintiff transferred KRW 147 million to the defendant according to the delegation contract.
However, the Defendant and C, even though they had no intention or ability to form a continuous goods transaction relationship between the Plaintiff and D from the beginning, deceiving the Plaintiff, which constitutes nonperformance of delegation contract. Since the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant on or around January 2015, and revoked and terminated the delegation contract, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 147 million to the Plaintiff as restitution or compensation for damages.
B. The Defendant’s assertion did not have concluded a delegation contract with the Plaintiff, and only played the role of receiving money from the Plaintiff upon C’s request and delivering money to C or D.
2. In addition to the witness E’s testimony on September 10, 2013, the Plaintiff sent KRW 140 million to the bank account under the Defendant’s name on the same day. On the same day, the Defendant issued a tax invoice for KRW 140 million under the name of “business agreement-based agency fee,” the Plaintiff’s “F” operated by D on September 13, 2013, shipped and exported the cosmetics produced by the Plaintiff to Hong Kong as the purchaser, and the Plaintiff remitted KRW 7 million to the Defendant bank account under the name of Hong Kong on September 17, 2013. The Defendant had conducted document work for export transaction between the Plaintiff and D. However, although D did not accept the above exported cosmetics, it is recognized that such circumstance alone does not require the Plaintiff to conclude a contract on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff.