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 parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased a Palm Acid, and paid the price thereof from the Defendant. The Defendant agreed, without any reason, to bring two containers other than the container transported the above Pm Acid, into the Plaintiff’s business place, and pay the storage fees for the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff left to the Plaintiff’s business place. In addition, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the charges for electric power and tank rent, etc. to the Plaintiff at the main place of business after converting the Pm Acid into liquid from the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the Plaintiff, but did not pay them up to the present day. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the storage and settlement fees for the container from April 1, 2014, KRW 4 million, 14 million (200,000,000,000 won x 507,000 won (50,000 won x 300,005 won and damages for delay.
B. On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a campaign to purchase 12,565,000 won per container from the Defendant to purchase 12,565,000 won per container. On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the down payment of KRW 3 million to the Defendant on March 28, 2014, and the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff 20 tons per 20 tons per a PPM to the Plaintiff on April 3, 2014. The Plaintiff sent KRW 9,565,00 to the Plaintiff on April 7, 2014, and the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder after paying only one half of the PPM for the PPM. The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to purchase 12,565,00 won per container. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted the right of retention against the Defendant by demanding the amount of storage fees and working expenses.
2. Determination as to the cause of the claim, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant occupied 2 containers and 20 tons per 10 tons per 20 tons per 20 tons per cam, which the Defendant transported to the Plaintiff via the company called the Cosh Ltd., but on the other hand, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 1 through 3.