물품해약금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court’s primary claim against the Defendant, who is the money ordering additional payments below.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff agreed to purchase the Defendant Company’s product from November 201 to March 2012 with the Defendant Company engaging in multi-level marketing (hereinafter “instant purchase agreement”), and paid the Defendant Company a total of KRW 63,556,000 (i.e., cash card settlement of KRW 50,801,000) for purchase price.
B. On April 17, 2013, the Plaintiff expressed in writing to the Defendant Company the intent to withdraw an application for the instant purchase agreement, and the said written intent reached the Defendant Company on April 18, 2013.
C. Co-defendant C of the first instance court was the representative director of the defendant company at the time.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 13 through 17, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion withdrawn the offer of the purchase agreement of this case concluded by multi-level marketing. As such, the Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable with C, the representative director of the Plaintiff, to pay the amount calculated by deducting the price of goods received by the Plaintiff from the purchase price paid by the Plaintiff
B. 1) According to each of the facts stated in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, 10, 11, and evidence Nos. 31,171,400 won (i.e., conversion amount of 39,821,400 won) - conversion amount of 8,650,000 won for shipment conversion amount of 39,821,40 won for E, can be acknowledged.
As to this, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the price for the goods to which the discount rate of 40% or 50% has been applied to the Defendant Company as a director of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff asserts that the price for the goods that the Plaintiff received is only KRW 21,133,500. However, considering the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in Nos. 26, 30, and Nos. 1 and 6, the Defendant Company is a certain percentage from the consumer price.