logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.08.31 2015나2240
매매대금반환
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay 20,400,000 won to the plaintiff and its related expenses on August 2012.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs wholesale and retail business of agricultural products under the trade name of “G,” and the Defendant is a person engaged in agriculture, such as cultivating bean, etc.

B. On December 24, 2010, Co-Defendant B entered into a contract with the Defendant for purchasing 200 kgs (hereinafter “instant contract”) the Defendant’s 40 kgs (hereinafter “the instant contract”) in the amount of KRW 51 million (i.e., KRW 6,375 won/km x 40 km x 200 g). On the other hand, Co-Defendant B entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to sell the instant be 52.4 million (= KRW 6,550 x 40 x 200 g x 200 g).

B paid KRW 51 million to the Defendant on the same day, and received delivery of the Congo from the Defendant, and on the same day, received KRW 52.4 million from the Plaintiff and delivered the Congo to the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. On December 26, 2010, the Plaintiff confirmed the quality of the Congo. Then, on December 23, 2010, the Plaintiff demanded return of the Congo to B on the ground that the quality as the goods, such as the spaws, spaws, etc., which were shown as samples on December 23, 2010, were considerably deteriorated.

B, on January 3, 2011, intended to sell the instant bean to two manufacturing enterprises with the trade name of “E” through D agricultural partnership, but the said two manufacturing enterprises failed to purchase the instant bean on the ground that the quality of bean is not good.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry and video of Gap 1 through 8 (if there are various numbers, including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of testimony and whole oral argument of the witness F of the first instance trial

2. Unlike the initially presented sample, the plaintiff's argument of this case is that the quality as a product such as spaws or spaws are considerably deteriorated because it is not good to spaws or spaws, etc.

arrow