청구이의
1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the order for the payment of the goods price case No. 2014 tea103, which was issued by the Gwangju District Court.
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around April 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to be supplied with various rice bags and stickers (hereinafter “instant contract”). After receiving the said goods from around that time to October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff unpaid the remainder of KRW 2,900,000.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant applied for a payment order of KRW 2,90,000 for the purchase price of the goods on May 20, 2014. This court rendered a payment order (No. 2014 tea103, hereinafter “instant payment order”) on May 27, 2014, and the Plaintiff was served with the said payment order on July 2, 2014, but the said payment order was finalized on July 17, 2014 with the lapse of the period for filing an objection.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2
2. The parties' assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the rice distribution of this case with the knowledge that it would be possible to be used when attaching the "Yaam-gun" Stickers on the rice distribution box stating "Yaam-gun". The entire amount of the rice distribution price of this case supplied to non-Aam-Aam-gun was returned in violation of the mark of origin. Since the Defendant, despite being aware that the rice distribution platform of this case was unable to achieve the purpose of the contract, or caused by mistake of important motive of the Plaintiff in legal act, the instant sales contract was revoked by the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case. Therefore, the enforcement of the instant payment order should be excluded. 2) Since the payment order based on the sales contract of this case where defects violated the good faith principle, it constitutes abuse of rights.
B. The gist of the defendant's assertion was that the plaintiff visited the defendant's factory in person to confirm rice distribution, and the sales contract of this case was made by making it possible for the plaintiff to correct it by a Sticker, and the plaintiff's cancellation of the sales contract
3. Whether the contract was cancelled due to the mistake in the motive of the contract.