beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal and the claim for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.
2. The expenses of filing an application for the return of the provisional payment of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” as the 6th and 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance is the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant’s “Defendant” as the 8th of the same face is the Plaintiff, respectively; and (c) the Plaintiff’s judgment on the newly asserted in the trial is identical with the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment on the newly asserted in the trial, and thus, citing
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s employee visited the Plaintiff’s office on September 26, 2014 and delivered the returned content-certified mail, which became effective. The instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded upon the Defendant’s declaration of intent of rescission on November 27, 2014. Article 11(3) of the instant sales contract provides that the instant sales contract becomes effective upon the lapse of 15 days after the dispatch of the contract.
Inasmuch as the Defendant sent a notice to demand the payment of the purchase price at the Plaintiff’s address by content-certified mail as of April 22, 2014; May 16, 2014; July 14, 2014; August 19, 2014; and service is impossible, each of the instant sales contract became effective on the date when 15 days have elapsed from the date of delivery; and the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded upon the Defendant’s declaration of intent to cancel the contract as of November 27, 2014.
B. 1) As to the first argument, evidence Nos. 8 through 10 (including the number of pages 1)
According to H’s statement and testimony of the witness of the trial party, H signed a labor contract with the head of the Daejeon-Namnam Regional Headquarters to which the Defendant belongs and engaged in on-site management work on September 26, 2014, upon request from the Defendant I to deliver postal items to the Plaintiff’s office, and visited the Plaintiff’s office to deliver documents and bags to the person at which the document was located; H as a result of land inspection on the same day.