(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.11.10 2015나3499 | 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) 창원지방법원 2015.11.10 2015나3499

판매공탁금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, the judgment of the first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In Section 3, Section 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “this case’s deposit cannot be deemed to have a duty to return it.” Then, the Plaintiff asserts that “In addition, the Plaintiff would have paid the sales deposit to the Defendant since the Defendant entered into a contract for goods supply with the head of Jinju-ri District Farm District and decided to sell it on consignment. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff may not seek the return of the sales deposit amount against the Defendant unless the Plaintiff entered into a direct transport or sales contract with the Defendant as follows. Meanwhile, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion made the Defendant seek the return of the sales deposit amount on the ground that the amount of the sales deposit was unjustly unjust as alleged above, if the Defendant had the Defendant paid the sales deposit amount to the Defendant on the ground that it did not have any legal ground, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the sales deposit amount, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek the return of the amount equivalent to the sales deposit amount against the Plaintiff, such as Jinju-ju-ri District Farming District Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd.

There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff entered into a contract of pac transport with the Defendant, and instead, the Plaintiff is paid KRW 1,000 for the pac transport cost from the same Pac, Inc. by introducing the pacon farm to the same Pacol Co., Ltd., and by calculating the pac transport cost from the same Pac.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.01.13 2016나54274

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.09 2017나26866

-서울고등법원 2018.10.10 2018나2020642

-대구지방법원 2012.10.11 2012나8213