(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.01.20 2014가단50443

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.01.20 2014가단50443

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts are based on the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not dispute with each other; or (b) evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 2, and 7-1 through 4, respectively; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings may be acknowledged based on the whole purport of the pleadings.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant, on July 24, 2013, drafted a document (Evidence A (Evidence A) stating “agency Agreement” (Evidence A) and agreed that the Defendant supplied goods to the Plaintiff and sold the said goods to the consumers at the price designated by the Defendant while opening and operating the agency, and the Plaintiff shall deposit the full amount of the sales proceeds to the Defendant, and the Defendant shall pay the sales commission (including value added tax) to the Plaintiff.

(b) from the next day, the agency contract of this case is referred only to as the “instant agency contract”).

According to the instant agency contract, the Defendant agreed to issue to the Plaintiff a tax invoice stating the amount calculated by deducting sales commission from the Plaintiff’s monthly sales amount (Article 3). Unlike the foregoing agreement, the Defendant issued a tax invoice stating the total amount of sales payment to the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant, which caused the plaintiff's claim, had the intention not to issue a tax invoice under the agency contract of this case at the beginning, and it was thus the plaintiff entered into the agency contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's deception or mistake of motive for important part of the contract was made. Thus, the contract of this case was revoked through the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for all damages incurred by the plaintiff in relation to the instant agency contract.

3. The expression of intent by fraud means that the process of formation of intention, namely, the motive for the expression of intent, is erroneous in the case where a certain expression of intent is made due to a mistake caused by another person’s deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da43824, May 27, 2005).

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 5. 27. 선고 2004다43824 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.17 2018가단5016730

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.03 2014재나281

-서울남부지방법원 2017.12.19 2016가단263175

-서울고등법원 2020.04.17 2019나2036064

-창원지방법원 2016.07.28 2015가합3112