beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (except for the part concerning the conclusion) except for the part which added or added below, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition, the following shall be added to paragraph 1(b) (No. 3) of the first instance judgment (no. 2).
“C. The Defendant supplied Plaintiff A with articles equivalent to KRW 13,00,000, total amount of KRW 13,031,00,000, such as frypt 1739 and pesticides. The Defendant supplied Plaintiff A with pesticides equivalent to KRW 1739,32,00,000, and the Defendant supplied Plaintiff A with pesticides equivalent to KRW 3,272,000, the total amount of the purchase amount of KRW 13,331,00,00 (= KRW 10,059,000, KRW 3,272,000), not the total amount of the purchase amount of KRW 13,031,00,00, and even according to evidence 8-2, the Defendant supplied Plaintiff A with pesticides equivalent to KRW 13,031,00,000, and thus, the Defendant is deemed to have supplied Plaintiff A with pesticides equivalent to KRW 13,031,00.
(b) Of the judgment of the court of first instance, paragraph 2(a) (Articles 3, 6 to 8) shall be applied to the following parts:
According to the above facts, the defendant entered into a contract for the sale of the instant lump sum with the plaintiffs, and thereafter the plaintiffs took out all of the sales trends cultivated, barring any special circumstance, the remaining amount under the contract is liable to pay the plaintiffs the amount calculated by deducting the price of goods to be paid by the plaintiffs from the price of the goods to be paid by the plaintiffs (as the defendant was in a trial, KRW 13,031,00,000, and KRW 1,204,000, the price of goods to the plaintiff Eul, and KRW 1,204,00,000 against the defendant, it is argued that the above obligation should be deducted from the purchase price of the instant case against the defendant, while recognizing the above obligation.