logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.04.22 2015나107845
물품대금
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. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Partial testimony of witness D" in Part 2, No. 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance is added to "Partial testimony of witness D" in Part 2, No. 14 is as "part of witness D's testimony of the court of first instance, results of appraiser G's appraisal," and "judgments" in Part 2, No. 16 is judged "," and each testimony of witness H and witness F of the court of first instance is insufficient to reverse this decision," and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the deletion of the "E treatment machine" in Part 3, No. 6 (hereinafter "E treatment machine") as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[1] At the time of concluding the sales contract with the Plaintiff around July 2014, the Defendant entered into the sales contract of this case, with the Plaintiff, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to withhold without any condition. On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff for the reservation of the right to cancel the sales contract of this case upon requesting the Plaintiff to remove malodor on July 30, 2014. Thus, the sales contract of this case was rescinded. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the sales contract of this case, with the Plaintiff’s explanation that malodor was not generated during the operation of the treatment of this case, but with significant malodor different from the explanation, the Defendant purchased the treatment equipment of this case, and compared the treatment equipment of this case with the Plaintiff on September 16, 2014 to treat the animal of this case “the date of treatment of this case 20 or less” (the date of treatment of the animal of this case).

arrow