beta
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.06.28 2015가단208626

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates bathing rooms with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business of boiler with the trade name of “D.”

B. On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant to install three air heat boiler Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant boiler”) in F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant contract”) at the price of thirty nine million won (hereinafter “instant boiler”).

C. At the time of the instant contract, the Defendant and E produce 90ton (water 30ton per unit 80°C) with respect to the performance, etc. of the boiler of this case, guaranteeing the Plaintiff the maximum electricity fee of 24 hours per unit below 210,000 won as per unit, and, in the event that one of the above conditions is not satisfied, the remainder after immediately suspending the installment and paying 30% out of 36 million won after the installment period shall be immediately refunded to the Plaintiff, and the damage after the installment shall be liable from F.

‘The Agreement was made’. D.

According to the contract of this case, the defendant established three boilers in the above Syna, and the plaintiff paid 39 million won to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of the instant contract, the Defendant produced 30ton from the boiler of this case to save the electricity fee of 2.1 million won per month. However, in the boiler of this case, only the hot water produced from and out of 65-70 ch, and the Plaintiff operated the electric boiler which had been previously owned, and thereby paid the electricity fee in addition because the Plaintiff was bound to run the electric boiler of this case, which had been previously owned. The Defendant breached an important part of the instant contract, and the Plaintiff expressed its intent to terminate the said contract to the Defendant. (2) The Defendant expressed its intention to the Defendant that the said contract would be terminated.