logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.01.09 2018나315838
매매대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is used as a used motor vehicle operated in the middle and high-class trading complex located in Daegu C, and the defendant is used as a used motor vehicle sold in Pyeongtaek-si D.

B. On September 12, 2016, the Plaintiff offered a proposal from the Defendant to purchase F Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “instant Motor Vehicles”) at KRW 41,000,000, and then sold the said proposal to obtain profits, and then asked G to whether the Plaintiff wishes to purchase the instant Motor Vehicles from the seller of the instant Motor Vehicle used in the same medium-sized commercial complex.

At this time, the Plaintiff informed G of the instant motor vehicle as if it were the case’s non-accident and private-wheeled motor vehicle, and G concluded a sales contract for the instant motor vehicle with a purchase price of KRW 43,00,000, in accordance with the brightness of its intent to purchase, and received KRW 43,00,000 from G on the same day.

After receiving the purchase price from G, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 41,00,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”) and paid KRW 41,00,000 on September 13, 2016, which is the following day, to the Defendant, and handed over the instant vehicle to G.

C. Around October 5, 2016, the Plaintiff was asked from G to the point of view that the accident of the unpaid repair cost of July 15, 2016 regarding the instant automobile was discovered, and the Defendant asked the Defendant of the circumstance, and the Defendant responded to the minor accident that is not necessary to repair.

However, as G re-examines the accident on July 15, 201, G changed the repair cost of KRW 19,110,000, and the Plaintiff, who received a claim from G, urged the Defendant to resolve the above problem several times, and the Defendant sent text messages with the same content as on October 12, 2016, to the Plaintiff.

G shall be October 2016.

arrow