(영문) 대구고등법원 2019.05.30 2018나25251

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) 대구고등법원 2019.05.30 2018나25251

매매대금반환

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 why the court has used for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of the pertinent parts as follows, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added to the third 14th sentence of the first instance court:

“The instant contract has the nature of the contract as a contract for the supply of manufactured goods.” Since the contract was terminated when the Plaintiff paid advance payment and the first intermediate payment, the Defendant must prove that “the degree of the performance of the instant contract reaches the degree that it would be appropriated as advance payment in excess of approximately 27.78% compared to the entire contract terms,” and if the period of the performance does not reach the degree of the advance payment, it shall return to the Plaintiff the amount overpaid as unjust enrichment in accordance with the legal principles of the Supreme Court precedents related to the advance payment of the contract for the contract (i.e., the performance rate or the period of the instant contract does not exceed the percentage equivalent to 10% of the advance payment paid by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the obligation to return USD 280,780 equivalent to the intermediate payment (25%) at least is obligated to return USD 280,780.

. Each subparagraph 4 of the first instance judgment of the first instance court provides that " March 30, 2016" shall be added to " March 30, 2017."

The fifth and second written judgments of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

3) However, even if all evidence submitted or cited by the Plaintiff, including the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 17 (including numbers, if any) are collected to this court, in light of the following circumstances, the defendant cannot be deemed to have entirely performed the contract of this case, and the so-called "defensiveness" of the defendant cannot be determined to have reached the extent of the price paid by the plaintiff compared to the total contract amount.

The following shall be added to the fiveth sentence of the first instance court:

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.01.08 2018나2011990

-서울고등법원 2017.05.25 2016나2084819

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.06 2017나17442

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.08 2015나19956

-서울고등법원 2017.09.29 2017나2008195