logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.11.26 2015나3843
손해배상(기)
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. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff, who is the selected party and his employee, was to sell and purchase the used cars already sold to the Plaintiff, acquired KRW 5.3 million from the Plaintiff, and thereby, the Plaintiff spent expenses equivalent to KRW 1.3 million on the conclusion of the above sales contract and the refund of the above sales amount. As such, the Defendant and the selected party jointly and severally asserted that they are liable to pay the Plaintiff the total damages incurred to the Plaintiff by the said tort (= KRW 1.4 million for KRW 5.3 million for KRW 5.3 million for KRW 1.4 million for consolation money) and delay damages.

On July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) visited the Defendant, who was an employee of the designated entity, to purchase FFE vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) at KRW 6.5 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); (b) transferred the instant vehicle to the Defendant totaling KRW 6.5 million from July 29, 2014 to August 14, 2014; and (c) on August 14, 2014, the Defendant issued documents necessary for the transfer of the name of the instant vehicle to D; (d) transferred KRW 1,098,50 from D on August 16, 2014 to D on the same day; and (e) delivered the instant vehicle to the consignor designated by D on the same date; or (e) delivered the instant vehicle to the consignor, including the instant vehicle number 1,098,500 from D on the same date; or (e) delivered the instant vehicle under the name of each of the parties to the instant vehicle registration No. 1374, May 14, 2014

According to the above facts, the defendant received the sales amount from the sales contract of this case and delivered the present vehicle to D, and there is no evidence to conclude that the present vehicle had already been concluded with another third party at the time of the sales contract of this case. Thus, the above facts of recognition alone are alone.

arrow