부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On August 2018, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was recommended by the Defendant to purchase the Defendant’s C 2013-Stoodi C 19.9 tons of rockls trucks (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) to look at the date of truck driving, and that the vehicle repair was completed recently.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle from the Defendant, and paid KRW 92 million to the Defendant with the purchase price.
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). After that, the Plaintiff completed the transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the instant vehicle, and entered into an entrustment management contract with D, a cargo transport business entity, on August 20, 2018.
However, unlike the defendant's horse that is unnecessary to repair, the plaintiff has not yet passed since the commencement of the operation of the vehicle of this case, and thus various repairs have been made due to the failure in the vehicle of this case.
In the first place, the sales contract of this case was concluded by the defendant by deceiving the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is revoked, and the plaintiff claims the return of the purchase amount of KRW 92 million paid to the defendant.
Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant rescinded the instant sales contract, and the Defendant sought the return of the purchase price of KRW 92 million to the Plaintiff.
2. We examine the Plaintiff’s primary argument.
In light of the records, even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was comprehensively prepared, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant deceivings the condition of the vehicle of this case to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove this differently. Therefore, this part of the
We examine the plaintiff's conjunctive argument.
In light of the above, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was integrated, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant rescinded the instant sales contract by agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.