물품대금 반환 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the import of ammunition B (hereinafter “the deceased”) with the Defendant’s decedent, and the Gun (hereinafter “import agency contract”), and paid USD 75,600 in price to the Deceased.
However, the Deceased agreed to bring ammunition into the Republic of Korea until the end of January 2015, but failed to perform the contract. As such, the Deceased’s contract was cancelled by service of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, and the Defendant, the inheritor of the Deceased, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 82,30,000 ($ 75,600, X1,089,000,000) and damages for delay.
2. Determination
(a) Facts below the facts are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8 through 11, 13, and 16.
1) On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the purchase of ammunition with the Armed Forces No. 965 unit, and entered into an import agency contract with the Deceased on November 5, 2013. According to the import agency contract, the Plaintiff wired USD 75,60 to the Deceased on April 22, 2014, and the Deceased paid the price to the D company of the Republic of Korea, an exporting company of ammunition. 2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not supply ammunition to the Armed Forces No. 9965 unit, and the said unit notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the contract for the purchase of ammunition around December 2, 2014, and the Plaintiff requested the Deceased to recover the price for the goods remitted to the Deceased.
B. (1) The Plaintiff asserts the cancellation of the import agency contract on the grounds of the deceased’s nonperformance. However, the payment period set on February 28, 2014 in the import agency contract, and Articles 3 and 4 agreed that “the deceased shall make every effort to perform the contract, and shall import goods within the payment period,” and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as impossible to perform the contract due to the cause attributable to the deceased. 2) Rather, it is difficult to deem that the contract performance was impossible due to the deceased’s responsibility.