분양대금반환 등 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The summary of the case is that when the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract for trucking transport business with the Defendant Company for the 2008-math vehicle (registration number E, chassis number F, hereinafter “instant vehicle”), Defendant D, the representative of the Defendant Company, and Defendant C, the actual operator, guaranteed certain working hours and net profit (hereinafter “the instant contract for sale in lots”) but the said guarantee agreement was not properly implemented or was falsely guaranteed, on the ground that the said guarantee agreement was not duly implemented or its initial guarantee was false, the Defendant Company claims restitution and damages arising from the cancellation of the contract for sale in lots, ② restitution of unjust enrichment arising from mistake and network cancellation, ③ liability for damages under the Commercial Act for the Defendant C and D’s act (Article 389(3) and Article 210 of the Commercial Act) through Article 756 of the Civil Act (Article 756 of the Commercial Act), Defendant C’s obligation to explain and explain each of the terms of tort liability based on the violation of the principle of good faith.
2. As to the determination of the Defendants’ principal safety defense, the Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since they agreed to cancel the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff and agreed to do not make any separate lawsuit in the future.
Therefore, in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the following: (a) No. 3, A’s evidence No. 10-1 through 3 (the evidence No. 10-2, the same as the evidence No. 10-2, the same as the evidence No. 10-2, B-1 (the Plaintiff is disputing the authenticity, but the authenticity is recognized as follows) and the entire purport of the pleadings with respect to the instant vehicle between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company on May 1, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with respect to the instant vehicle, and carried on the freight transport business using the said vehicle, but was anticipated before the contract.