손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of this Court’s explanation is that it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing the same.
2. Determination as to the claim for restitution based on the impossibility of the performance of the first sale contract
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a contract deposit of KRW 60 million on August 2, 2013; KRW 290 million on the purchase price; KRW 290 million on December 31, 2013; KRW 4375 million on April 1, 2014; and KRW 820 million on June 2, 2014.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not dispose of rice of the object of the first sale contract at will to another customer and deliver it to the Plaintiff. Thus, the first sale contract became impossible without any cause attributable to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund the sum of the purchase price already paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1.87 billion and the amount equivalent to the interest accrued therefrom as unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff specified the amount of claim by offsetting the Defendant’s claim amount of KRW 800 million against the Plaintiff from the amount of restitution for reasons of impossibility of performance of the 1, 2, and 3 sales contract and the amount of claim amount of KRW 30 million for damages as stipulated in the 2 sales contract. However, whether to set off KRW 800 million or not shall be determined below. On the basis of the amount of KRW 800,000 for each 1, 2, and 3 sales
(b) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 20, 32, and 43 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) of the facts charged, the following facts may be recognized:
① The Plaintiff and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) concluded a sales contract with the Defendant as a de facto party in the course of engaging in grain transactions.
② If the Plaintiff, E, or the Defendant purchases grain from the Plaintiff, E, or a third party who purchased grain, then the Plaintiff, or E re-purchases grain from the Defendant.