logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.13 2015가단5334055
매매대금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from September 6, 2014 to January 13, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 원고는 2014. 7. 5. C 대표인 피고와 사이에, 냉동지방분해기 2014년 최신형 ‘쿨쉐이핑(Cool Shaping)’ 쿨패드 등을 부착하여 지방세포만 선택적으로 냉각해 파괴함으로써 피하지방을 감소시킨다는 냉동지방분해 기기(을 10호증 등의 기재 내용 참조). 1대(이하 ‘이 사건 기기’라 한다)를 매매대금 2,500만 원에 구입하는 매매계약을 체결하였다

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff deposited the down payment of KRW 1 million to the Plaintiff around July 7, 2014. The remaining sales amount of KRW 24 million was paid to the Plaintiff on July 9, 2014, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for facility lease of KRW 24 million (30 million), monthly rent of KRW 1091,000 (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”) with the Plaintiff on July 9, 2014, under which the Plaintiff entered into a contract for facility lease of KRW 30 million (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 24 million to the Plaintiff, a selling corporation, U.S., a U.S. sales corporation, after deducting KRW 960,000 from the commission fee agreement between the Plaintiff and DF Capital.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the instant devices in the manner of deposit. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff received delivery of the instant devices from the Daehan operated by the Plaintiff.

C. However, there has been a dispute over the advertisement of the par value required for the use of the instant device between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff: (a) on July 18, 2014, the Plaintiff stated that “to return the instant device to the Defendant in order to restrict the price; and (b) the Defendant also returned to the Plaintiff without complying with the agreed provisions; and (c) on July 25, 2014, the Defendant stated that “the Plaintiff would return the instant device to the Plaintiff on 28 days because the Plaintiff would not implement the agreed terms,” and accordingly, the Defendant recovered the instant device with the consent of the Plaintiff on July 28, 2014.

arrow