logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.07.26 2015가단242798
매매대금반환
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 40,800,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, who is a used vehicle with a motor vehicle sea, registered the used vehicle as indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with a sale price of KRW 37,800,000, and a non-accidentd vehicle on the sales website of a used vehicle.

B. On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s office, and sought an explanation from the Defendant to the effect that the instant vehicle was a non-accident other than the fenced and repaired due to a minor accident, and issued a “motor vehicle performance inspection register (Evidence A3)” stating the same.

C. On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for a used vehicle with regard to the instant vehicle as KRW 40,800,000 (a total of KRW 37,000,000, KRW 3,000,000, and KRW 800,000) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and received the transfer of the registered name of the instant vehicle after paying the sales amount, and received the said vehicle.

After acquiring the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff requested a performance test due to the occurrence of problems, such as the fact that the air bags warning, etc. has a remote phenomenon, and the air conditioner is not in operation, etc., and as a result, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as follows: “The Plaintiff has a power to repair and exchange the air bags, repair and exchange the air conditioner, and repair the pen panel among the main structural parts.”

E. According to the history of the instant vehicle’s insurance accident history information, the insurance company paid KRW 43,132,000 with its own vehicle damage security on August 29, 2014, and the details sold by the third party after the acquisition of the instant vehicle by the insurance company, and the details paid KRW 440,400 with the repair cost on May 8, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 13, 14, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Facts acknowledged prior to the recognition of deception, and the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings.

arrow