매매대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. According to the expansion of the purport of the claim by this court, the defendant 60.
1. The scope of this Court’s trial at the first instance court, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 8 million in terms of return, etc. of the proceeds in relation to the used machinery, and ② demanded KRW 60,000 in consideration of the proceeds in relation to the used machinery, and the first instance court dismissed the claim related to the used machinery, and accepted the claim for the price in relation to the used machinery.
Accordingly, this Court appealed against the claim on the part related to the plaintiff's double walling machinery, which is limited to the claim on the double walling machinery and the damages for delay extended by the plaintiff in this court.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff filed a claim related to double walling machines, which the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant around June 30, 2017 the total price of KRW 6 million (hereinafter “instant machine”). The three double walling machines purchased from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant machine”).
(2) All of the parts of the instant machinery have broken down, and the Defendant did not repair the instant machinery. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 6 million, KRW 1.6 million, KRW 1.6 million, and KRW 4 million, in total, to be used in the instant machinery purchased from the Defendant for the operation of the instant machinery, and KRW 8 million, KRW 3 million, which the Plaintiff sold the instant machinery and received from the Defendant, and KRW 5 million, and delay damages therefor. (2) However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased the instant machinery from the Defendant, not the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
(O) According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 6, it is recognized that Eul was a supplier of the instant machinery and that the electronic tax invoice issued by the plaintiff as the supplier of the instant machinery was issued. Even if the plaintiff purchased the instant machinery from the defendant, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that there is a defect that can cancel or cancel the sales contract of the instant machinery, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
Therefore, it is premised on these defects.