(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.11.30 2017나14447

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) 전주지방법원 2018.11.30 2017나14447

보증금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff, a major household sales business operator of the Plaintiff’s assertion, purchased 4 small-wave 2 (hereinafter “the instant small-wave”) from the Defendant, a household manufacturer (However, if the small-scale is not sold, one of them was agreed to be returned and disposed of), and around that time, paid KRW 2.9 million to the Defendant with the above small-wave sales amount.

However, since the fact that there was a defect such as the defect in the condition of leather from the time of purchase, the Plaintiff was unable to sell the said small wave to a third party, and on July 2016, the Plaintiff returned the small wave of this case to the Defendant using the cargo vehicle.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 3.5 million (i.e., KRW 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the remainder of the small amount of the small amount of the instant small amount of the instant small amount of the damages incurred by the Defendant’s sale of defective small amount of the sale. (ii) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 3.75,00,000,000,000,000

2. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the respective descriptions of Eul and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the plaintiff alleged that "the defendant promised to return one of two small and medium parties at the time of selling the so-called so-called so-called "at the time of selling the so-called party," but the plaintiff and the defendant did not prepare a disposition document regarding the contract for the sale of the so-called party, the reason for return, and conditions of return, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above agreement, and the statement of Gap evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there is a defect as alleged by the plaintiff in the so-called party of this case. Even if some defects exist, five months have passed since the plaintiff purchased the so-called party of this case.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.04.12 2018나212635

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.10.27 2016고정1445

-인천지방법원 2016.01.19 2015나2232

-대전지방법원 2015.07.23 2015나1596

-대구지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나306447