beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.18 2019나31985

약정금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport:

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the parts cited by the court of first instance and the part determined additionally as to the allegations made by the plaintiff in the appellate court, and thus, it is reasonable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

(In addition to the testimony of the witness C at the appellate trial, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant contract was concluded by a person without authority or that there is no specific agreement on the contract amount is invalid is not acceptable). [Supplementary part] The Defendant’s argument is regarded as “UV REFCITR” as “UV REFALTR” as stated in the third 7th sentence of the judgment of the first instance.

[Additional Decision] The defendant conjunctively asserts that the contract of this case contains the plaintiff's acceptance of the defendant's 3D printer in 55,000,000 won. Since the plaintiff sold to the defendant in the past 170,000,000 won per unit, the contract of this case, which determined the acquisition price of such salt, is obviously unfair legal act using the defendant's rash and experience.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized based on the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 12 and 13 and the testimony of the witness of the appellate court as a whole, the following circumstances, namely, in the case of the pertinent 3D printer, the amount of depreciation to a considerable extent has to be made by continuous use, and the price at which the plaintiff repaired and resells the above 3D printer after repair of the 70,000,000 won is not much different from the acquisition price of KRW 55,00,00,000, it is difficult to view the contract of this case as an remarkably unfair juristic act solely on the basis that the defendant is internal.

The defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.