(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.07.02 2014나22015

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) 대구지방법원 2015.07.02 2014나22015

매매대금반환 등

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 22, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the purchase of the E Hansung four-wheeled Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “instant Motor Vehicles”) owned by the Defendant via D, a real operator of the C Motor Vehicle Sales Company, for KRW 8,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,000,000 as the purchase price, and completed the registration of transfer in the name of the Plaintiff.

C. On April 2012, without obtaining approval from the head of Gun, the Defendant replaced the loaded gate and back door of the instant vehicle from the right and back door of the instant vehicle. As a result, the length of the loading box from 2,350m to 2,450m, the width was 1,680m from 1,530m to 1,680m, and the height was 220m to 340m from 220m to 340m.

On January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff was judged inappropriate on the ground that “the loading of the instant vehicle was changed from a dump to a general camera.”

E. Meanwhile, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff received a record of the inspection of the performance and condition of used cars without any indication as to whether the instant motor vehicle structure was modified or as to the degree of the condition of the relevant motor vehicle, and did not hear any explanation from D or the Defendant on the change of the structure of the instant motor vehicle.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul’s evidence 8, Gap’s evidence 8-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant motor vehicle was purchased for the purpose of spraying pesticides, and that the Defendant was unable to operate the said motor vehicle on the ground that the Defendant was unable to pass a regular inspection on the wind that illegally remodeled the loading of the said motor vehicle from a dump to a general car with a dump type, even if it was hidden.

Therefore, the plaintiff serves a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.01.18 2017가단205881

-광주지방법원 2018.06.15 2017가단510855

-창원지방법원 2014.04.25 2013가단76706

-대구지방법원 2017.01.19 2015나310399

-창원지방법원 2015.11.25 2015나34745