beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,185,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from March 28, 2017 to September 12, 2018.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The following facts may be admitted if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the whole pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased at least 85,700,000 won per 5 ton vehicle (=50 to 50 to 1,700,000 won x 1,700,000 won) with the Defendant for five ton vehicles (at least 2,500 to 3 km per vehicle abandonment, at least 10 to 10 tons per vehicle) from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for five ton vehicle (at least 1,70,000 won per vehicle). The contract deposit shall be paid at 50 to 1,70,000 won, and the intermediate payment shall be paid at 30% of the purchase price on September 8, 2016 and the balance shall be paid after the inspection on the preceding day of the work. ② The shipment period from October 20, 2016 to November 15, 2016 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 85,000,000 to the Defendant for the purchase price stipulated in the instant sales contract.
Plaintiff’s assertion
In accordance with the instant sales contract entered into with the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid KRW 85,00,000 for the sales of the ship (50 for the 5 ton vehicle x KRW 1,700,000 for the 14,000 for the 1,00,000 for the 5 ton vehicle) and KRW 14,000 for the 14,00,000 for the 14,000 for the 14,000 for the 5 ton under the said sales contract (i.e., KRW 85,00,000 for the 14,20,000 for the 26 ton under the said sales contract). However, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 58,00 for the 5 ton vehicle x 1,700,000 for the 1,000 for the 4,000 for the 26 ton ton.
The judgment on the petition for the return of the cost for the termination of the marriage is sought by the plaintiff to return the sum of KRW 14,00,000,000 to the defendant under the sales contract of this case. Thus, the part of the claim for the return of the cost for the termination of the marriage is first considered.
. The Parties;