beta
Text
1. The defendant
A. 6,600,000 won for Plaintiff A, 9,900,000 won for Plaintiff B, and 16,500,000 won for Plaintiff C and each of the said money.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The Plaintiffs are deemed to have entered into a contract with the Defendant for the sale and entrusted operation of mining machines (hereinafter “instant contract”) as follows.
(2) Each of the instant contracts concluded on June 14, 2017 (including value-added tax) on June 13, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract and paid-in mining machine purchase price (including value-added tax) (hereinafter “mining machine”) and purchased a computer using a program to obtain coding from the Defendant (hereinafter “cding machine”) to supply the mining machine again to the Plaintiffs, but the Defendant divided the Plaintiff’s extraction machine into coding machine’s possession, management, and profit-making at a certain rate while entrusting the Defendant with the occupation, management, and operation of the mining machine, on June 13, 2017.
The plaintiffs and the defendant agreed that the contract may be terminated or modified and claim damages if all or part of the contract of this case is violated.
3) The Plaintiffs paid each purchase price to the Defendant pursuant to each of the instant contracts, but the Defendant did not deliver the mining machine to the Plaintiffs or pay the profits from the sale of the encrypted or encryption. 4) On September 25, 2017, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant to implement the distribution of the encrypted generated from the mining machine purchased by the Plaintiffs, and sent content-certified mail to the effect that each of the instant contracts will be rescinded when it would not be implemented by September 30, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 4 evidence (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the facts of the judgment 1, each of the instant contracts was lawfully rescinded on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation, and the Defendant rescinded the contract with the Plaintiffs.