(영문) 대전지방법원 공주지원 2018.06.28 2017가단21007

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) 대전지방법원 공주지원 2018.06.28 2017가단21007

매매대금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 28, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased the entire pine trees planted from the Defendant in Gangwon Hongcheon-gun, D, and E Forest (hereinafter “instant forest”) in KRW 70 million on the same day, and paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant totaling KRW 45 million on October 1, 2010.

B. After doing so, the Defendant prepared a letter stating that the Plaintiff may deliver the entire quantity of pine trees in the above C Forest (hereinafter “instant letter”), and the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 15 million to the Defendant from April 9, 201 to May 6, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (if there are virtual numbers, it shall be included in each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. While the Plaintiff asserted that while the Plaintiff had been engaged in mining and selling the instant pine trees, it proposed that the Defendant would mine and sell the entire remaining pine trees (hereinafter “the instant pine trees”) with the expense of mining KRW 15 million. The Plaintiff transferred the instant pine trees extraction site to the Defendant, and remitted KRW 15 million with the expense of extracting the said pine trees. However, the Defendant embezzled the instant pine trees to have been paid with the payment by extracting and selling them, and thus, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 60 million with the value of the instant pine trees or the sales proceeds of the said pine trees embezzled by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff initially asserted that the repurchase contract was established in accordance with each of the instant notes, and sought a redemption price based thereon, or delegated the extraction and sale of the instant pine trees, but claimed that the Defendant failed to properly implement it, and sought compensation for damages due to nonperformance. On May 3, 2018, the Plaintiff stated that the existing assertion was withdrawn at the date of pleading and only claimed compensation for damages due to embezzlement.

3. Determination Gap's evidence Nos. 6, 9, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the witness F's testimony and pleading as a whole.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2014.05.29 2012가합3056

-창원지방법원 2016.01.19 2015구합866

-창원지방법원 2019.01.31 2018나2701

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2014.08.13 2013고단900

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.08.14 2018나30112