beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On September 201, the Defendant purchased the machines listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant machines”) from the Plaintiff and demanded remodeling, as in the machinery located in the Jeju University, so that it can be repaired more strongly.
B. The Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, remodeled the instant machinery with the cost of remodeling KRW 3.26 million, but the Defendant did not deliver the instant machinery.
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff stored the instant machinery to B, and 3.5 million won was the cost of moving the instant machinery to the storage place, and the cost of storing the instant machinery until March 2014 is equivalent to KRW 1.2 million.
The plaintiff has a right to claim remuneration against the defendant pursuant to Article 61 of the Commercial Act because the plaintiff is a rightful merchant and has been remodeled for the defendant within the scope of his business.
Therefore, the Defendant, along with the delivery of the instant machinery from the Plaintiff, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 4,810,00 (i.e., the cost of remodeling cost of KRW 3,260,000,000 for storage cost of KRW 1,260,000).
2. Determination
A. Article 61 of the Commercial Act provides that when a merchant commits an act for another person within the scope of his/her business, he/she may claim reasonable remuneration for such act. Unlike the provisions of Articles 686 and 701 of the Civil Act, the act of the merchant for another person shall not be claimed unless otherwise stipulated, if the act of the merchant is for profit-making purpose and has provided efforts for another person within the scope of his/her business, it shall be deemed that the expectation of the remuneration and the payment of the remuneration to the person who has gained profits from the act is consistent with the common sense of commercial transactions. Thus, if
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15816 Decided September 20, 2007, etc.). B.
Gap evidence 1 to .