beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.04.05 2016나10689

매매대금

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall deliver the vehicles listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The scope of adjudication may be limited to the part of the claim for restitution following the cancellation of the sales contract, even though the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for restitution by the court of first instance, the claim for restitution was accepted by the court of first instance, the claim for damages was dismissed, and the defendant appealed only to this.

2. Basic facts

A. A. Around June 20, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant and the Plaintiff KRW 13,500,000 for the instant number plate (hereinafter “instant number plate”) of heavy freight type C for business use (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and number plate from the Defendant.

B. On June 20, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 500,000 won for down payment, and 13,000,000 won for the remainder on July 1, 2015.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendant concluded a sales number plate agreement with D in relation to the instant vehicle, including a non-assignment agreement (hereinafter “instant non-assignment agreement”). D.

On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that the instant sales contract was rescinded on the ground that the Defendant could not transfer the above number plate to the Plaintiff under the said non-assignment agreement.

E. The Defendant transferred KRW 2,500,000 to the Plaintiff around July 9, 2015.

F. The instant vehicle has been used by the Plaintiff until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence 2 and 7 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination on a claim for restitution due to cancellation of a sales contract

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant sales contract is not included in the subject matter of the instant sales contract.

However, according to the above evidence, Eul evidence No. 5 and the purport of the entire argument, the sales contract of this case explicitly states that the subject of sale is "C", "vehicle and number plate".