beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 12,657,686 and its KRW 10,985,288 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 12,657,686 from June 29, 2016, and KRW 838,796.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. A. Around February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive sales contract for the consignment and consignment of commercial vehicles with the Defendant, which provides that the Plaintiff may purchase and take over all cargo vehicles suitable for the Plaintiff’s operation of logistics transportation business. The Plaintiff shall make an investment in kind in the Defendant, and the Defendant shall establish an agreement with the Defendant to entrust the operation and management right of the said vehicles to the Plaintiff. The Defendant shall arrange the GS test (logistics center) as an input company so that the Plaintiff may carry out logistics transportation using the said vehicle and pay service charges, etc. to the Plaintiff upon receiving the said logistics center.
(A) Upon entering into the instant consignment sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered the transferor’s name in KRW 64,000,000, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff entered the transferor into the instant consignment sales contract in the amount of KRW 64,000. The sales price of the said vehicle agreed to include goods distribution business expenses, business promotion expenses, and company margin in addition to the vehicle price, and KRW 57,000,000 as the down payment was made on the date of entering into the contract, and the remainder of KRW 7,00,000 was treated as the outstanding amount.
In addition, Article 5 of the contract clause provides that "the transferee may not demand the transferor to return the down payment when the transferee has terminated the contract."
In addition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared an entrustment contract (Evidence No. 1) with additional documents to verify and implement the above consignment sales contract of this case, and the Plaintiff also prepared and delivered a letter of delegation of cargo (Evidence No. 2) and a written consent for consultation on the purchase and sale of the goods, etc. (Evidence No. 3) upon the Defendant’s request.
B. The Plaintiff intended to purchase a cargo vehicle for business use in a new lane, and thus, this-math 3.5 tons manufactured by Hyundai Motor.