beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.03 2013가단307887

예약보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,200,000 as well as 6% per annum from August 20, 2013 to November 28, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a company that operates domestic and foreign travel agency business, etc., and the defendant is a company that runs the aviation ticket brokerage business.

B. Around April 2013, the Defendant made a pre-contract for the sale of Asian aviation tickets at the destination of the Philippines. On April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred 3120,000 won to the Defendant as a pre-contract deposit, and then sold a travel product including 12 accounts for September 17, 2013 and 12 accounts for a travel product on September 18, 2013.

C. On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the sales of airline tickets at the request of the head of the Aviation Team B office of the Defendant Company, and on September 6, 2013, paid KRW 9,127,200 to the Defendant the price for airline tickets for 24 units sold as above to the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 Facts without dispute, Gap-1, 2, 5, 6, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the assertion

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserted that, in the Defendant’s claim on April 16, 2013 (INVICE and evidence A No. 3), the Plaintiff stated that “the amount equivalent to all or part of the selling price is de pos, and the Palty is not imposed upon the seat of the given group.” The Defendant stated that “the organization, the Depos of which have completed Depois, shall ensure the seat support.” As such, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 31.2 million to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserts that Gap evidence No. 3 is a forged document, and the contract signed on April 16, 2013 (OZ block DEOS IT simplified contract, Eul evidence No. 1) is a genuine contract. The evidence No. 1 states that "B shall pay for each period of time and 80% of the total number of persons less than 80% of the total number of persons," and that "the de posit amount shall not be refunded at each period of time." Thus, the Defendant asserts that the above pre-paid deposit is not obliged to return KRW 31.2 million.

B. (i) First, we examine the credibility of the evidence No. 1.

(1) The detailed details of the down payment shall be August 14, 15.