(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.10.15 2019나263

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.10.15 2019나263

선급금반환

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of electrical appliances, and the Defendant is a stock company established for the purpose of manufacturing and installing lighting appliances.

B. On August 19, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to produce and supply 200 optical fibers, etc. necessary at the Gyeongbuk-si site (hereinafter “instant contract for the supply of the instant products”), and on the same day, paid KRW 4 million to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant did not comply with the supply and installation date designated in accordance with the contract for the supply of the instant products and did not arrive at the scene of the racing, and the Plaintiff received an order for revocation of installation from the racing-si, and the Plaintiff’s order was invalidated due to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the advance payment of KRW 4 million

B. On August 19, 2015, the defendant, who received an advance payment of KRW 4 million from the plaintiff, manufactured the product ordered by the plaintiff in compliance with the plaintiff's request by the plaintiff within the fixed date, and thereafter, the manufactured product was loaded on the vehicle on the next day and started on the racing-si site. On the day before arrival at the racing-si site, the telephone was notified by the plaintiff before arrival at the racing-si site and returned back again, and the order was revoked by the racing-si, not by the defendant, but by the plaintiff.

3. In order to claim for the return of the advance payment of KRW 4 million paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, there exists a cause for nonperformance under the contract for the supply of the instant crops and there is a cause attributable to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff must cancel the contract for the supply of the instant crops. First, the examination of whether the Defendant was liable for nonperformance or not, and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone,

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.01.06 2015가합103901

-서울고등법원 2014.09.30 2013나2027211

-서울서부지방법원 2016.11.03 2016나145

-의정부지방법원 2021.04.01 2019나218623

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.13 2014가단154943