beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 22,50,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from July 22, 2014 to September 1, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 16, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased a Korean 27 tons car truck (vehicle registration number: B; hereinafter “instant truck”) from the Defendant for KRW 17.5 million; (b) agreed to pay 10 million as down payment on the same day; (c) an intermediate payment of KRW 47.5 million until August 22, 2008; and (d) the remainder at the time of consultation.
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.
According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 10 million as the down payment on August 16, 2008, which is the date of the contract, and KRW 12.5 million as part of the intermediate payment on August 20, 2008.
C. On September 14, 2008, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with C to sell the instant truck at KRW 113 million. On September 21, 2008, the Defendant: (a) registered the instant truck under the name of the Defendant; and (b) internally owned and operated the instant truck; and (c) entered into an entrustment management contract with C to pay the entrusted management expenses, etc. to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-2, Eul-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, around September 2013, rescinded the instant sales contract by agreement, including down payment, has no dispute between the parties or can be recognized according to the purport of the entire pleadings. As such, the Defendant is obliged to return to the Plaintiff the down payment and the intermediate payment totaling KRW 2.5 million due to the restitution following the cancellation of the instant sales contract.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was paid KRW 1 million by the Defendant Company, despite the Plaintiff’s profit by operating the instant truck between Korea and Japan, and sought payment of KRW 5 million from the Defendant Company.
The testimony of the witness D alone is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's claim is without merit.
In addition, profits from the operation of the truck of this case.