매매대금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. The parties' assertion
A. On August 2015, at the beginning of the Plaintiff’s harvest, most of the pertinent drillings occurred when the Plaintiff harvested, and the productability was lost. The cause of the drillings occurred due to the Defendant’s early seeding, or the Defendant’s fault in temperature management at the time of seeding or planting. Accordingly, the Defendant sold to the Plaintiff a ship of which drillings were scheduled to occur. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the purchase price due to incomplete performance, and the seller’s warranty liability to return the purchase price following the cancellation of the sales contract under the seller’s warranty liability. (ii) Moreover, the Defendant agreed to refund the Plaintiff the Plaintiff a refund of KRW 7 million out of the purchase price. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay that amount.
3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff first seeks payment of KRW 80 million as part of the purchase price equivalent to KRW 110 million under the instant sales contract to the Defendant.
B. On July 10, 2015, the Defendant, according to the instant sales contract, delivered to the Plaintiff all of the obligations by delivering to the Plaintiff all the drillings ordinarily living in a normal life, on the date of the remainder payment.
Since then, the plaintiff decided to manage the ship of this case. On the other hand, the trend of the ship of this case occurred not only by exposure to low temperature but also by high temperature, and the trend of the ship of this case was caused by the plaintiff's leaving harvests while adjusting the shipment timing and leaving the harvests into the environment of high temperature days.
Therefore, the defendant does not bear any liability for nonperformance or any liability for warranty against the drilling of this case.
3. Determination
A. The Plaintiff was responsible for nonperformance and the warranty liability due to the occurrence of a substitute.