[물품대금청구사건][고집1982(민사편),534]
The validity of a transaction with a trading unit price exceeding the price publicly notified by the Government for monopoly items;
Even if the transactional unit price between the oil company and the seller to be supplied with the relics of the company exceeds the government's public notice price for the relics of monopoly products, it can not be said that the transactional unit is an act contrary to social order or an unfair juristic act.
Articles 103 and 104 of the Civil Act
Korea Oil Business Corporation
Ma-Writtens
Jeonju District Court (81 Gohap187)
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against the defendant ordering payment exceeding twenty-five percent per annum from April 3, 1981 to the date of full payment shall be revoked and the part of the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.
The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.
The total cost of a lawsuit shall be ten minutes, one of which shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the other shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 22,520,082 won with 25 percent interest per annum from April 3, 1981 to the date of full payment.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second instances.
From February 23, 1978 to March 10, 1981, the Defendant was supplied with the products manufactured by the Plaintiff Company and sold them. The fact that the amount of KRW 22,520,082 to the Plaintiff remains, there is no dispute between the parties concerned (it seems that the Defendant would revoke the confession in the first instance trial on the ground that the Defendant asserted that the credit payment obligation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was confirmed and agreed at KRW 15,00,000 on February 28, 1981, and that there was a fact that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on February 28, 1981. However, it seems that the confession in the first instance trial would be revoked on the credit payment obligation on the grounds that there was no evidence to acknowledge that it was against the truth and caused a mistake except for a partial testimony of the party witness at the trial, which is not believed by the party members.)
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above gold 22,520,082 won to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay the above gold 1,160,08 won to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant is calculated at the unit price exceeding the announced price of agricultural and fishery products which are monopoly products, and gold 1,014,708 won is calculated unilaterally by violating the agreement to trade with the previous price for a certain period even if the announced price is increased, the plaintiff's unilaterally increases, calculated the unit price. Thus, the above total gold 2,174,796 won should be deducted from the above large amount. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the above gold 2,174,796 won should be deducted from the above large amount, Eul evidence 4-2 (price change notice), Eul evidence 4-4 (price Notice), Eul's price Adjustment, and Eul's price increase to the above 1,000 won or less than the above 1,000 won testimony price per trade.
Second, the defendant paid 1,00,000 won to the plaintiff at the time of the sales contract with the plaintiff. Since the above contract was terminated on March 24, 1981, the defendant asserted that the claim to return the money and the obligation to pay the above goods should be offset on an equal amount. The plaintiff received 1,00,000 won from the defendant. However, the above security deposit was re-appealed that it was reverted to the plaintiff due to the defendant's failure to immediately settle the payment after the termination of the transaction with the plaintiff. Thus, according to the above evidence No. 3 (Contract), if the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is not settled within five days after the termination of the transaction, it can be acknowledged that the security deposit that the defendant paid by the defendant was not returned (Article 9 (3) of the above contract, which is contrary to social order and automatically done by the defendant, but it cannot be viewed that the defendant's claim to set off the above claim against the plaintiff's non-party 1 as an unfair legal act is groundless.
Sixth, the defendant's defense that the purchase price of the cooling house purchased by the defendant at the time of the above sale contract is offset against the claims to be returned and the above amount of the debt since the plaintiff agreed to pay it later to the defendant. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff agreed to pay the purchase price of the cooling house and the above amount of the debt, and there is no evidence to
Fourth, the defendant's defense is that the defendant's return bond and the above credit debt amount are offset against the amount equal to the above credit amount, since the oil products, among the oil products supplied by the plaintiff as the deteriorated products, are in total 3,020,042 won. Thus, the defendant's defense is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant returned the deteriorated products or returned them to the court of first instance and the non-party 1, even if the defendant returned or returned them to the court of first instance, the testimony of the court of appeal, which corresponds to the defendant's above argument, is not trust, and the testimony of the court of appeal Nos. 2 (the current status of return of variable oil) and the evidence No. 3-1 through 60 (each dispatch certificate) cannot be recognized, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Fifth, the defendant, around August 15, 1979, terminated the sales contract with the plaintiff and paid 500,000 won to the non-party 1, who was the sales supervisor of the plaintiff company, after concluding the sales contract with the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the sales supervisor of the plaintiff company, demanded the transaction with the plaintiff to continuously compensate for the down payment already paid. Accordingly, the defendant did not waive the contract with the above sex milk and continue the transaction with the plaintiff, so the plaintiff shall pay 50,000 won to the defendant, and the above credit debt amount is offset against the amount equal to the above credit amount. However, if the defendant collected the contents of the above sales contract with the non-party 1's testimony and the testimony of the above witness, the non-party 1's right of representation was terminated on August 15, 1979 and concluded the sales contract with the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was the counter-party 1, paid the above down payment to the defendant.
Sixth, since the defendant's 82,528 and 886 of an empty disease currently kept by the defendant's agent were accepted by the plaintiff and paid 5,898,400 won to the defendant as well as 5,898,400 won to the defendant, this claim is also offset against the above debt amount, the defendant, taking full account of the statement No. 7 (written acceptance) without dispute over the establishment and the testimony of the non-party 1 of the above witness, delivered 15,070 and 320 of the boxes to the plaintiff on June 5, 1982 and delivered 15,00 won to the plaintiff on February 10, 1980, 50 won, and 2,000 won, 1,000 won, 2,000 won, and 5,000 won, 30,500 won, 50,000 won, and 30,000 won, 5,000 won, 30.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 22,520,082 the above official disease, box price of 1,393,50 won after deducting the above amount of 21,126,582 won from the above official disease, box price of 1,393,50 won, and damages for delay under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 3, 1981 to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognized limit, and the remainder is dismissed without merit. Since the part against the defendant's appeal of the court of first instance which differs from the above conclusion is unfair, the defendant's appeal is dismissed within the above limit of the above judgment and the remaining appeal of the defendant is dismissed, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judges Kim Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)