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. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who provides advertising agency services in the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells sap, etc.
B. On February 5, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff as down payment. On April 19, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with the supply price of KRW 10 million and tax amount of KRW 1 million to the Defendant.
C. On May 28, 2018, the Defendant: (a) paid the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 10 million at the Defendant’s representative director’s account; and (b) in return, the Defendant agreed to re-deposit KRW 11 million, including value-added tax, through the Defendant’s corporate account (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (c) the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million on May 30, 2018 to the Defendant’s representative director’s account.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 8, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff.
B. The defendant's assertion did not have entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the vicarious sale of home shopping, and the plaintiff merely paid 10 million won as a provisional contract deposit by stipulating that the plaintiff would sell overaap immediately if he pays only KRW 10 million, and thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking payment of down payment of KRW 10 million cannot be accepted under the premise that the contract for the vicarious sale of home shopping was entered into. Even if the contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to perform his duty of vicarious sale of home shopping, so the plaintiff's delivery of a copy of the reply of this case is asserted that the above contract is cancelled.
Modern, the plaintiff.