beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.07.15 2015나54307

매매대금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim brought at the trial.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 26, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) decided to purchase two outboard machines from the Defendant (YMAHA, product name: F350UCA; hereinafter “outboard machines of this case”); (b) paid KRW 30 million on the date of the contract; (c) calculated two outboard machines used by the Plaintiff at KRW 3.0 million on the date of the contract; and (d) calculated two outboard machines of which the Plaintiff was originally used at KRW 3.0 million in lieu of delivering them to the Defendant; and (e) paid the remainder of KRW 34 million on March 17, 201 as the remainder of KRW 34 million.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 90 million out of the sales price of the instant case.

Since then, the Plaintiff installed and used the instant outboard flag on the sealine.

B. During that period, the Plaintiff requested repair to the Defendant if the breakdown occurred in the instant outboard machine. Accordingly, the Defendant continued to repair the said outboard machine on October 13, 201, to repair the lower part of the instant outboard machine on July 27, 201, to replace the engine block on August 6, 201 and December 7, 201, and to repair the engine block on April 17, 2013.

On April 15, 2013, the Defendant did not receive repair costs separately, in addition to the amount of KRW 2.5 million paid by the Plaintiff as repair costs.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff continued to request the Defendant to repair the instant outboard machine without compensation, and the Defendant refused to repair the instant outboard machine on November 10, 2013 and requested the Defendant to repair the instant outboard machine on the 12th of the same month after receiving delivery of the instant outboard machine from the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, except for the instant outboard machine, the Plaintiff purchased 2 outboard machine from the Defendant (YAMAHA, product name: F150BEX; hereinafter “the instant outboard machine”). As to the instant outboard machine 150, there was a total of KRW 5,693,000 until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, 8, and 9 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the first instance court.