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. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was operating a heating and cooling machine manufacturing business, etc. with the trade name B, and leased five air conditioners to the Defendant, who was engaged in construction in leisure water C around May 2013. Since five air conditioners leased by the Defendant were not returned to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to refund the amount of KRW 8470,000 and damages for delay equivalent to five air conditioners to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
B. On May 2013, the Plaintiff delivered five air conditioners (hereinafter “instant air conditioners”) to the Defendant around May 2013. On May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the amount of KRW 2,200,000 for the amount of KRW 2,200,00 (Evidence A) to the Defendant in addition to the air conditioners rent for the air conditioners, the amount of KRW 5,00,000, a sum of KRW 2,200,000 for the items, and thereafter, the Defendant paid KRW 2,20,000 to the Plaintiff on September 13, 2013 may be acknowledged by the parties’ written evidence No. 2, the video of Category B, the amount of KRW 5, and the testimony of the witness witness D of the first instance trial.
However, on the other hand, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by adding up the arguments to the testimony of the witness Eul of Eul and the witness Eul of the court of first instance, i.e., ① the fee for the air-conditioning in this case is KRW 350,000,000,000 and the purchase price is KRW 400,000,000,000, and the unit price stated in the above tax invoice is equal to the above purchase price; ② the plaintiff claims that the air-conditioning in this case is a product that has been produced three to seven years since the production of the air-conditioning in this case, but considering the fact that the condition of the air-conditioning in this case shows the largest, and the date of production that the defendant donated to another company was presumed to have been produced before and after the year 201, ③ the sale price of the air-conditioning in the form of 197 through 201, and 39,005 through 305,200,005 or 200.