beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant, including a claim added by this court, is as follows.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 26, 2011, the Plaintiff decided to purchase each movable property listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant outboard ship”) in the amount of KRW 94 million for convenience, and the purchase price shall be paid KRW 30 million on the date of the contract, and the purchase price shall be calculated at KRW 30 million on the date of the initial use of the Plaintiff, and the purchase price shall be calculated at KRW 30 million on the date of the initial use of the Plaintiff and the transfer of KRW 30 million to the Defendant shall be substituted by calculating KRW 4 million on March 17, 201, and the remainder shall be paid at KRW 34 million on the remainder of March 17, 201.
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 90 million out of the sales price of the instant case.
Since then, the Plaintiff installed and used the outboard machine in the ship F.
B. During that period, the Plaintiff requested repair to the Defendant on the ground that the breakdown occurred in the instant outboard machine. Accordingly, the Defendant continued to repair the instant outboard machine on October 13, 201, repair on the lower part, repair on July 27, 201, replacement of engine block on August 6, 201, and December 7, 2012, respectively.
On April 15, 2013, the Defendant did not receive the repair cost separately except for the repair cost of KRW 2.5 million from the Plaintiff.
C. Since then, the Plaintiff continued to request repair to the Defendant, even if the breakdown occurred in the instant outboard machine, and the Defendant refused this request and requested repair of the instant outboard machine to C on November 10, 2013, upon delivery of the instant outboard machine from the Plaintiff, on November 10, 2013, and currently, the Defendant is keeping the instant outboard machine in custody.
On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed against the Defendant to refund the instant purchase price, around November 10, 2013, as Gwangju District Court Branching 2014Kadan20346, which was around November 10, 2013.
or the contract of this case was terminated by agreement
“...............”