(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.10.24 2018나1724 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2018.10.24 2018나1724

매매대금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract to purchase 200 kgs from the Defendant who imported and sold the instant seeds and seedlings, etc. from the south of China, to purchase 200 boxes. The purchase price shall be KRW 53,00,000, and the said seeds and seedlings shall be paid as down payment, and the balance shall be paid after the customs clearance of the said seeds and seedlings. The time of supply was determined on May 201, 2013 through June 2013 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the E-bank account under the name of the Defendant’s designated D bank account from March 20, 2013.

3) On July 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) discovered viruses and discarded the seeds and seedlings to be supplied by the Defendant according to the instant sales contract; and (b) provided the Plaintiff with KRW 90,000 per box until September 5, 2013; and (c) provided the Plaintiff with a certificate that the Defendant will be held liable for civil and criminal liability in the event of failure to implement the promise (hereinafter “instant certificate”).

4) The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with the seeds and seedlings up to September 5, 2013.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The judgment of the Defendant did not supply the strike to May 2013 or June 2013, which is the time of supply as stipulated in the instant sales contract, and it can be acknowledged that the Defendant failed to perform the contract even if the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff to perform the contract and the Defendant promised to supply the strike to September 5, 2013. Thus, the Defendant is deemed to have failed to perform the contract. The fact that the complaint of this case (the Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of the down payment under the premise that the instant sales contract was rescinded) was delivered to the Defendant on November 13, 2017 is apparent in the record. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the contract.

Therefore, it is true.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2017.10.12 2017고단501

-대전지방법원 2018.06.21 2016나10641

-제주지방법원 2017.11.30 2016고단2775

-제주지방법원 2018.02.07 2017나11681

-광주고등법원 2016.04.22 2015나11617