logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.11.08 2018가단33882
계약금 반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, a seller of agricultural machinery, with a trading amount of KRW 33,158,00,00 for the trading price as to the Defendant, Trackter (36HTPP T36V), Tracker, and Track (a combination of three types; hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant Trackter”).

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

The down payment out of the sale amount is replaced by the Track Track Track L3503, hereinafter referred to as the "existing Track Track Track Track"), and the Defendant at a discount of KRW 15,158,000 out of the sale amount, including the above Track Track Track price, and KRW 10,000,000 from the loan to the remainder of KRW 8,00,000 until April 30, 2018.

C. On March 22, 2018, the Defendant brought an existing track, and the Plaintiff asserted on March 22, 2018 that the instant track was not usable in a water debate and requested the Defendant to cancel and terminate the instant contract.

The Defendant had already completed the order of the instant blackter to the Plaintiff, and it was difficult to cancel the contract because it was a type of equipment available in the discussion. On March 23, 2018, the Defendant supplied the instant blackter to the Plaintiff.

E. The defendant currently keeps the plaintiff's existing remains in the defendant's agent warehouse.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's employee can use the Track Track Track, and entered into the contract of this case. The Track Track can only use the Track Track Track Track Track, and can not use the Track

In addition, the Track of this case is ordinarily 20,400,000 won, and the defendant sold the price unfairly by 33,158,000 won.

Therefore, the contract of this case is concluded by mistake or deception, and the plaintiff has cancelled the contract of this case.

arrow