beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant's trademark from the plaintiff is a virtual steis steis model.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: “On the other hand, A filed a claim for the payment of goods against the Plaintiff on May 4, 2012, 2012, the Daegu District Court and racing-Support 2012Kadan2760, which was filed against the Plaintiff on May 4, 2012, A filed a claim for the payment order against the Plaintiff on March 23, 2012, and the Plaintiff filed an objection against the payment order and implemented the claim for the payment of goods. Upon the Plaintiff’s performance as the claim for the payment of goods, A filed an objection against the payment order, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be “the lawsuit in question,” and the portion of “A March 4, 2013” in the same part as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the claim for refund of the purchase price
A. (1) As seen in the above basic facts, the Defendant delayed the implementation of the supply term set forth in the instant sales contract, and prepared and issued a supply performance certificate as of February 3, 2012 to the Plaintiff’s demand for performance, and issued a delivery certificate as of March 16, 2012 as of March 16, 2012 to the effect that “if the Plaintiff is returned by the Defendant’s final delivery from A to A for the delayed payment period, the Defendant shall return it to the Plaintiff.”
After that, the Plaintiff lost the claim for the return of the price for the goods that A filed against the Plaintiff, and returned the price for the goods to A according to the judgment, and received and kept the TXD 850.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant delayed the obligation to supply TXD 450 goods under the instant sales contract, and failed to perform it despite the Plaintiff’s notice of performance. Thus, the instant sales contract reaches the Defendant on April 3, 2013, including the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to rescind the instant sales contract.