beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.17 2017가단5084750

보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 50,00,000 and annual interest thereon from April 14, 2017 to October 17, 2017; and

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 원고와 피고는 2016. 4. 4.경 원고가 피고 판매의 찰솥밥기계 등을 매수하여 이를 부산경남 지역에 판매하기로 하는 계약(이하 ‘이 사건 계약’이라고 한다)을 체결하였는데, 그 구체적인 내용은 별지 계약서 기재와 같고, 원고는 피고에게, 2016. 4. 4. 500만 원, 같은 해

4. 14.4. 45 million won was paid in total and KRW 50 million, and the deposit money under the above contract was paid.

B. On April 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant to the Defendant during the mid-term police officer, and the same year.

5.12.10 million won has been supplied with the original goods and the same year;

5. On September 8, 2016, the Defendant paid the remainder of KRW 50 million to the Defendant. In addition, from September 8, 2016 to March 2017, the Defendant purchased goods equivalent to KRW 15,370,000 from the Defendant and paid KRW 15,370,000 to the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff around March 13, 2017 and the same year

4. Around November, 198, the Defendant would not extend the contract of this case, and thus, requested the Defendant to return the deposit and the price for the goods to be returned at the time of termination of the contract.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s goods supplied from the Defendant, which remain without being sold, is identical to the list of goods to be returned, and the sum of the supply values is KRW 31,960,00 as indicated in the same list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. As the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a special contract to bring an action against the dispute over the first one-year contract term under Article 14 of the contract of this case, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. We examine the judgment. Article 14 of the instant contract provides that “When the court intends to make a judgment, it shall be located in Seoul where the Defendant’s main business point is located, but in the case of the Plaintiff, it shall be limited to the first year and by self-processing without going through a mutual agreement with each other.”