(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.28 2015나19314

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.28 2015나19314

매매대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The defendant, when he was a minor attending a high school on 2003, entered the vehicle that was parked by a person who sells cosmetics on the street in Seoul Manambro, Seoul.

Cosmetics paid 600,000 won each month in 12 months of accident, 50,000 won per month, and was promised to have a person employed in the branch established in several sources of money for two months.

However, the cosmetics purchased by the Defendant could not be used without quality, and after paying the cosmetics for two months, the seller was employed after checking whether the cosmetics were employed, and the seller was informed of the problem in the cosmetics several times, but the contact did not occur.

On the other hand, at the time of filing the instant lawsuit seeking the sale price of cosmetics, the Defendant was living in the place where the Defendant had resided, and thus, the complaint was not served.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined the payment of the sale price of cosmetics against the Defendant.

Article 12(1) of the former Installment Transactions Act, which applies to the instant cosmetics sales contract, provides that the buyer may refuse to pay the installment to the seller, and subparagraph 3 of the said Act provides that "if the seller fails to fulfill the warranty against defects, the seller shall be liable to pay the installment."

In the case of this case, the Defendant purchased the cosmetic of this case and could not use the cosmetic of this case. After the lapse of two months, the Defendant attempted to contact the seller to inform the seller of this situation, but did not contact with the contact point known by the seller.

If such circumstances are met, the foregoing provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the seller’s failure to perform the warranty liability as seen earlier, or in cases where the seller’s failure to perform the warranty liability is similar thereto.

Therefore, the defendant's sales proceeds of cosmetics.

참조조문

-할부거래에 관한 법률 제12조 제1항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2013.01.09 2012노2994

-서울북부지방법원 2016.07.01 2016고정1266

-서울남부지방법원 2017.01.17 2016고정2424

-대구지방법원서부지원 2017.12.27 2017가단58165

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.15 2016고단1339