1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of KRW 8,265,00 for the goods returned to the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gaso81808, and the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gaso81815 for the return of KRW 8,450,00 for the goods paid in advance by the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gaso815. The court of first instance accepted all the claims of KRW 8,450,00 for the goods paid in advance after the combination of the above two cases, and dismissed all the claims of KRW 8,265,00 for the goods paid in advance.

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed against the claim for the price of the goods returned, the scope of the judgment of this court shall be limited to the claim amount of KRW 8,265,00 for the goods returned.

Plaintiff’s assertion

On October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a center operation agreement with the Defendant and paid 40 million won as the price for the goods from the Defendant.

However, on December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff became aware that it opened the actual office and belongs to the Defendant as a result of this year, and agreed with the Defendant to terminate the above Center Operation Agreement.

However, the Defendant did not comply with the agreed terms, and the Plaintiff sent the notice of cancellation and cancellation of the contract in accordance with the Door-to-Door Sales Act and the Center Operation Agreement on March 5, 2013, and returned the goods equivalent to KRW 8,265,000 among the goods supplied by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 8,265,000 won for the price of goods returned to the plaintiff and delay damages therefor.

Judgment

It is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to dispose of the goods supplied by the plaintiff on the sole basis of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3-1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff and the defendant must return goods supplied within three months upon entering into a contract for the operation of the center on October 18, 2012, and exceed this period.