beta
Text
1.Paragraph 1 of the order of the first instance judgment, including the Plaintiff’s claim changed in the trial, shall be amended as follows:
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff engaged in the business of selling lawns has been engaged in the business of selling lawns in a way that the Plaintiff pays advance payment to the Defendant, and the Defendant has the Plaintiff mine off lawns cultivated by the Defendant, but the value of extraction law is deducted from the advance payment already paid, which is calculated based on the average unit price agreed upon by the Plaintiff at the time of extraction.
B. On June 16, 2009, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 120 million in total,00 won on April 24, 2010, KRW 10 million on April 25, 2010, KRW 66 million on May 3, 2010, KRW 30 million on November 3, 201, KRW 20 million on December 12, 201, and KRW 30 million on May 5, 2012, KRW 126 million.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 4, and Eul evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 8 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff paid 2,3610,000 won to the defendant on April 30, 2010, as well as 12,660,000 won as stated in paragraph (b) No. 1-B, and it should be deemed that the above money was paid in advance in light of the time of payment, etc.
The defendant asserts that the above money is not a advance but a settlement for the previous transaction.
According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-2 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's purchase of "Yidd' 20,000 won as of April 24, 2010, the advance payment of KRW 10,000,000 as of April 25, 2010, the advance payment of KRW 6,610,000 as of May 3, 2010, and the advance payment of KRW 2,361,00 as of May 3, 201, while the above fact that the plaintiff claimed the payment of KRW 2,361,00 as of May 23, 200, the fact that the plaintiff claimed the payment of KRW 2,361,00 as of the first instance trial, and the fact that KRW 2,3610,00 was deposited by only KRW 3610,00 as other advance payments.
However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the said money is the settlement amount.