beta
Text
1. The defendant
(a) deliver construction machinery listed in the separate sheet;
(b) from January 30, 2014 to the annexed list.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 23, 2012, the Plaintiff Company concluded a sales contract with C on the instant truck as follows.
The payment method of the purchase price of KRW 38,000,000 for the purchase price of KRW 15,000 shall be paid in installments in the amount of KRW 23,00,000 each month on the date of the contract, but upon the completion of the balance, C shall transfer the ownership of the instant truck to C, and if the balance is not completed, C shall not sell or purchase the truck in the event that the balance is not completed.
B. On June 23, 2012, the date of the contract, the Plaintiff Company received KRW 15,000,000 from C, and delivered the instant truck to C, and C paid KRW 4,00,000 out of the remainder to the Plaintiff Company until then.
C. On November 25, 2013, C entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant truck as follows:
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). A seller’s agent buyer: Defendant’s sales price of KRW 42,500,000: KRW 10,000,000 for the payment of the down payment of the purchase price of KRW 32,50,000 on the date of the contract; and
D. On November 25, 2013, on the day of the contract, C received down payment of KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant, and delivered the instant truck to the Defendant. The Defendant has used the instant truck until now.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (Evidence No. 3) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. 1) The Plaintiff Company did not grant the right to represent the instant sales contract to C, and thus the instant sales contract is null and void. The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant truck to the Plaintiff Company without any title. 2) As the Defendant uses the instant truck without any title, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Company unjust enrichment equivalent to the royalty. The Defendant concluded the instant sales contract with C even though it is aware that the instant truck was owned by the Plaintiff Company, and thus, the Defendant’s possession is a tort.