매매대금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the purchase price claim under the court 2005 Ghana581 and was sentenced to a judgment against the Defendant in full loss.
B. The Plaintiff appealed to this Court No. 2006Na1718, and this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on April 19, 2007 (hereinafter “the judgment prior to the review”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the judgment of the first instance court prior to the retrial under this court 2009Na11, but this court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit for retrial on February 11, 2010, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
The Plaintiff filed a suit for retrial under this Court No. 2010 Jaena79 against the above judgment No. 2009NaNa11, but this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the suit for retrial on December 23, 2010, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
E. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial with this Court No. 2011 Jaena76 against the foregoing judgment No. 2010NaNa79, but this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit for retrial on November 24, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant, around November 2002, recommended the plaintiff and C to join as a member of the corporation D, a multi-level distributor of the purchase price, to pay a certain amount of the sales price as an allowance, and only if there are two members, he/she shall return all the paid money. Since the plaintiff withdraws from the credit card terminal around February 2003, the defendant is obligated to pay 5,720,000 won for the purchase of the card terminal purchased from D and delay damages therefrom.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance and that of the court prior to the review did not accept the plaintiff's claim, and thus, the judgment subject to a retrial was dismissed by the plaintiff against the judgment No. 2010 (Na79).