beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the Defendant for delivery with the Home Persers, etc., and paid KRW 17,00,000 to the Defendant on the same day, and entered into a contract with the Defendant to entrust the Defendant with the operation and management right of the freight transport business for the said vehicle (hereinafter “delivery contract”). The Plaintiff entered the instant vehicle to the Defendant and entrusted the Defendant with the operation and management right of the freight transport business for the said vehicle (hereinafter “delivery contract”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around February 2017, the Defendant was unable to entrust the delivery service to the Plaintiff according to his own cause; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the branch entry contract and the delivery contract; and (c) the Plaintiff paid KRW 17,00,000 to the Defendant at the time of the contract as a security deposit to secure the Defendant’s damage that may arise during the performance of the Plaintiff’s delivery contract; (d) the Defendant who terminated each of the above contracts is obligated to refund KRW 17,00,000 to the Plaintiff the deposit. If the foregoing KRW 17,00,000 is not recognized as the security deposit for the Plaintiff’s assertion; and (e) if the sales amount for the number plates of the instant vehicle and the vehicle for business use is recognized as the sales amount for the instant vehicle and the vehicle number plates, the business vehicle number plates cannot be subject to the sale;
Therefore, the defendant must return the number plate price, etc. to the plaintiff, and if the above KRW 17,00,000 is recognized as the purchase price of the vehicle of this case, the defendant sells the vehicle of this case which is merely KRW 3,00,000 to the plaintiff at a remarkably low price.