정산금 등 반환
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the allegations emphasized or added by the plaintiff and the defendant in this court. Thus, they are cited as it is by the main text of Article
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) since the defendant sold the first vehicle of this case, it is necessary to settle accounts and pay at least the amount the plaintiff paid with the first vehicle of this case.
② The Defendant shall refund oil expenses paid by the Plaintiff in relation to the operation of the 2nd vehicle of this case, and the expenses paid by the Plaintiff to the expressway tolls 12,882,971.
B. We examine the above determination ① argument.
The judgment of the court of first instance cited above that the Defendant was unable to perform the obligation of the Defendant to register the transfer of ownership as to the first vehicle of this case upon the termination of the land entry contract by selling the first vehicle of this case, and the damages incurred due to the impossibility of performance should be based on the market price of the subject matter to be sold at the time of impossibility of performance.
Therefore, it is reasonable for the Defendant to calculate damages on the basis of the amount sold to the first vehicle of this case, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount paid by the Plaintiff should be refunded in excess of this is rejected.
② We examine the above argument.
As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion as to oil payment, each entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 9 through 16 (including each number), which appears to support the Plaintiff’s assertion, cannot be confirmed as to whether the Plaintiff actually paid the oil price equivalent to the amount claimed by the Defendant Company, since there was no separate confirmation from the Defendant Company
In addition, according to the statements in Gap evidence 17-1 to 12, the plaintiff seems to have approved the road toll using his credit card, but when considering the statement in Eul evidence 6, the above statement alone is liable for the payment of the defendant.