beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff sells women’s clothes in Japan, and was aware of the Defendant during the process of finding out the household-producing manufacturers through Eastern C, the birth in Korea, and selling them to Japan. On January 201, 201, the Plaintiff purchased 5,500 won or more from the Defendant for the first time, but returned the provisional launch around March 29, 201, to the wind that the Defendant sent back a life-sustaining that is not the mother’s mother, and was returned the price.
On April 201, the Plaintiff: (a) decided to purchase artificial leave 9 million won from the Defendant; and (b) paid all the price of the goods; (c) as a defective product that was sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the Defendant strongly resisted to the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant decided to return the goods to his wife, and (e) returned the goods to D, who was the Defendant’s wife, on December 201, the Plaintiff returned the goods.
In spite of the Plaintiff’s return of goods, the Defendant agreed through D on February 10, 2012 to exchange the goods with 250 figures from March 2012 until the end of 2012. However, the Defendant did not comply with the agreement. Therefore, the Defendant should return the goods paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff KRW 9 million.
B. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion is a person who produces and sells provisional launchs in the name of “G” in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government EF market. On January 15, 201, around 201, the Plaintiff sold a mixture of KRW 120 through 130,000,000 for KRW 5,000,000. On March 15, 201, more than 3.5 million was sold prior to the beginning of March 201, and the Defendant asserted that there was defect in the goods, and the Defendant was only KRW 9,00,000 as the provisional launch price around April 13, 201, and the Defendant agreed to no longer deal with the defect in the goods.
However, in violation of the above agreement, the plaintiff demanded return with the defendant's place of business from December 201 to the defendant's place of business from December 201, and the defendant's side rejected it, only 2 to 3 days.