beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.07.25 2018가단132254

물품대금

Text

1. Defendant B: (a) KRW 139,250,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from April 20, 2018 to February 7, 2019.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a medium and high-computer distribution business; Defendant B is a person who actually runs a stock company D and was engaged in a transaction related to the Plaintiff and the computer without any separate business registration; Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) is a company that manufactures and sells computers, peripheral devices, parts, etc.

B. The Plaintiff purchased virtual currency extraction machines from Defendant B from May 2017. From December 27, 2017 to February 12, 2018, 45 virtual currency extraction machines amounting to KRW 139,250,000 (the price per unit differs each time of order) were not supplied from Defendant B.

C. The Plaintiff, upon delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, cancelled the sales contract for the 45 virtual currency mining machines equivalent to the above payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, 8, 9, 11, 4, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. As seen earlier, Defendant B did not supply virtual currency extraction machines corresponding to 45 units while receiving advance payment from the Plaintiff, and according to the evidence as seen earlier, it is recognized that the said supply is impossible or that the Plaintiff had no intent to supply prior to the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, through the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the contract, the transaction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B was lawfully rescinded.

B. As to this, Defendant B was unable to supply the Plaintiff with virtual currency extraction machines because the price of the traffic card, which was the main component, increased rapidly and the price of the traffic card, could not supply the virtual currency extraction machine at the original price ordered by the Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant B did not bear fault (non-performance defense) and even if not, the price of the traffic card.