매매대금반환
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in mid-term rental business under the trade name of “B” and the Defendant is a company that engages in specialized sales business of used cars.
B. On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant scraper”) in KRW 12,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of transfer in its name on December 30, 2013.
The Plaintiff paid the full purchase price to the Defendant around that time.
C. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was operated by the Defendant upon delivery of the instant scraper, was subject to a regular inspection by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was not determined as appropriate in the said regular inspection on the ground that “The said scraper’s certificate of registration was modified illegally by 3,000m in total width of the loaded box even though its width is 2,750m.”
On the day of the above regular inspection, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to cancel the sales contract of this case while finding the Defendant on the day of the above regular inspection, and on the same day, delivered the instant Leper to the Defendant.
E. Meanwhile, after the Plaintiff purchased the instant scraper, the Plaintiff disbursed KRW 1,856,750 (i.e., value-added tax amounting to KRW 425,00,000, KRW 503,000, KRW 78,750, KRW 300, KRW 425,000, KRW 425,00, KRW 850, and KRW 78,750 (hereinafter “the instant additional cost”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the appraisal by the party appraiser C, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The width of the Plaintiff 1’s cargo loaded on an illegal dog was extended to more than 3,000m in excess of 2,750m approved by the Plaintiff, thereby resulting in the Plaintiff being judged inappropriate in the regular inspection of the automobile.
The plaintiff is unable to operate the above bitr more due to these defects, and the above defects are in this case.