(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나3633 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나3633

물품대금

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claim extended from the trial to the incidental appeal, shall be modified as follows:

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition as described in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Furthermore, the Plaintiff, at the time of concluding a sales agreement with the Defendant on the boiler, set the sales price of the instant boiler as KRW 19.6 million, but, at the time of concluding the sales agreement with the Defendant on the said boiler, set the purchase price of the instant boiler as KRW 19.6 million, was the Defendant’s boiler, which was already installed (hereinafter “existing boiler”).

(2) As to the Plaintiff’s collection of KRW 2 million, the Defendant arbitrarily removed the previous boiler without delivering it to the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay KRW 2 million as compensation for nonperformance of the Defendant’s duty of delivery. According to the evidence No. 1, there is a special agreement under which the Plaintiff would recover the “current air boiler (Nebox) installed” owned by the Defendant. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to find that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to reduce the purchase price on the condition that the Plaintiff recover the existing boiler, or that the reduced purchase price is equivalent to KRW 2 million, and there is no other evidence to find otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of this case is without merit, and the Defendant asserts that the instant boiler was defective and that the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of the purchase price and the refund of the remainder of this case’s claim based on the set-off agreement was cancelled.

It is difficult to recognize that the boiler of this case was defective.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.10.05 2016노988

-춘천지방법원 2016.09.30 2014나2048

-춘천지방법원 2018.07.11 2017나50185

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2012.07.13 2011고단717

-수원지방법원 2021.04.08 2020나60000