beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of “3. Judgment” among the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
[Supplementary Use]
3. Determination
A. 1) In order to establish a contract, the agreement between the parties is required. The agreement between the parties is not required with respect to all matters that form the content of the contract in question, but there is a specific agreement with regard to its essential or important matters, or at least the standard and method that can specify the future in detail (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51650, Mar. 23, 2001). 2) The Defendant decided to purchase the light by means of the so-called entry transaction, and then received a large quantity of light from the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant height”) from the Plaintiff on Oct. 2015, 205.
However, there is no evidence to verify that there was an agreement between the parties on the specific amount or the criteria and method for calculating the price with respect to the purchase price of the instant scrap.
In other words, the defendant asserts that "it was decided to consult about a reasonable price by taking into account the risk of death resulting from the input transaction method without fixing the price immediately at the time of the transaction, and reflecting the quantity, condition, etc. of the high light language after a certain stabilization period," while the plaintiff argued that "the price should be calculated on the basis of the high light fishing price traded in the Suhyup Cooperative," but the testimony made by C, a family member of the representative director of the plaintiff, is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's allegation, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.
However, in August 2015, it is a separate high light between the plaintiff and the defendant.