beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures Hand-phone peripheral devices, etc., and the Defendant is a trade company, etc. with the trade name of “C”.
B. The Plaintiff was supplied with a cell phone charging machine from around 2010 to around 2011 to around 2014 by E (hereinafter “E”).
The transaction between the Plaintiff and E was suspended on January 2015 due to the dishonor of E.
C. D requested the Defendant to deliver a mobile phone charging device in the name of C on or around February 2015 to March 2015, and the Plaintiff agreed to receive a mobile phone charging device from the Defendant and D on or around March 2015.
The Plaintiff received approximately 50,00 mobile phone charging machines and approximately 2,00 mobile phone charging machines for 1,800 2A-20,000 2A-2A-2,000 mobile phone charging machines for each opening, but the Plaintiff would first pay the mobile phone charging machines and receive the mobile phone charging machines in order as necessary. D.
The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 90,609,880 as the method of remitting money to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant between March 30, 2015 and September 19, 2015. From July 2, 2015 to August 29, 2015, the Plaintiff received the mobile phone charging amounting to KRW 64,90,000 from July 2, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] A’s 1 to 3, Gap’s 5, Eul’s 1, Eul’s 5, Eul’s 5, witness F’s partial testimony, the result of the Plaintiff’s principal questioning, the whole purport of oral argument
2. The parties' assertion
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s request for the delivery of a mobile phone charging machine to the Defendant constitutes an offer to trade a mobile phone, and the sales contract is concluded when the Defendant supplies a mobile phone charging machine to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff paid the price in advance to the Defendant while ordering the goods, but the order was revoked due to the Defendant’s failure to deliver the goods, so the Defendant is obligated to restore the price received from the Plaintiff to its original state, and this constitutes a return obligation of unjust enrichment.
(2) The Defendant’s sales contract is concluded.