beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.08.25 2016나2045

손해배상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract on the part of the Defendant to purchase pelpellets pelpellets (hereinafter “instant boiler”) manufactured by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) in KRW 25,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,00,000 as the down payment on the day of the contract, and remitted KRW 10,000,000 to the account B on February 17, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband C were unable to use the boiler of this case due to noise generated when the boiler of this case was operated. The sales contract of this case was revoked, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the purchase price and the consolation money due to mental damage that was already paid. The Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff for the payment of the remaining purchase price (U.S. District Court Decision 2014Da24576Gadan28141 (Counterclaim)). On July 15, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s principal claim and the counterclaim claim of B.

Therefore, even though B appealed, there was a settlement in the above appellate court on April 1, 2015 with the effect that B would not claim any balance of KRW 14 million due to the waiver of appeal.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 3, 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 3, and 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the boiler of this case, when in operation, is above the permissible level of noise, and contrary to the advertising that the boiler of this case is reduced and convenient to use fuel costs, the actual fuel costs are more complicated and complicated.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cancelled the sales contract of this case on the grounds of the above defects of the boiler, and returned the purchase price already paid to the Defendant who manufactured the boiler of this case.