beta
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2017.09.20 2016가단53248

매매대금반환

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 28,293,840 and interest rate of KRW 6% per annum from May 25, 2016 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an agricultural partnership that produces and distributes agricultural products, and the Defendant is engaged in the agricultural products sales business.

B. On September 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of goods to be supplied with the 1,100 won per 1km of the plant variety from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant supply contract”), and on November 16, 2015, received a total of 31,011km from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant scrap pool”), and paid the full amount of KRW 34,112,100 to the Defendant around that time.

C. On February 2016, the Plaintiff found that the meat was decomposed in the course of washing the said meat to store the Plaintiff immediately after the receipt of the instant meat from the Defendant. As a result, the Plaintiff discovered that the meat was infected by black spawn.

The Plaintiff, as described in paragraph (3) above, notified the Defendant of the above fact over several times for a considerable period from the date of discovery of the defects in the instant scrap horse to the date of the instant lawsuit, and requested the Defendant to confirm the status of the scrap horse and to return the gold horse price. However, the Defendant did not comply with the request, and the Plaintiff currently keeps the scrap horse in the Plaintiff’s warehouse.

E. Meanwhile, on June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff lent 4.6 million won to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay this up to the date of the closing of argument in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including additional number), appraiser B's appraisal result and fact-finding reply result, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 had a contractual obligation to supply the plaintiff with any defect in accordance with the supply contract of this case, but the defendant had a duty to supply it to the plaintiff, which is infected by the black team as the defendant's obligation.