beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 15, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts (fact that there has been no dispute) are to be purchased at KRW 10,00,000 from the Defendant for C excavation search machines (hereinafter referred to as the “instant excavation search machines”) and the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,000,000 as the down payment on February 24, 2014 and KRW 7,000,000 as the remainder on September 24, 2014, respectively, and was transferred on November 2014.
The Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the fact that he did not work properly, and the Defendant accepted the instant digging machine and delivered it again to the Plaintiff around June 15, 2015.
The plaintiff paid 750,000 won to the defendant at the time of repair and transportation costs.
2. Assertion and determination
가. 원고의 주장 원고는 2015. 6. 15.경 굴삭기 수리 후에도 이 사건 굴삭기가 하자로 작동하지 아니하므로, 이 사건 매매 계약을 해제한다고 주장하며, 피고에게 그 원상회븍으로 매매대금 1,000만원의 반환을 청구한다.
B. Comprehensively taking account of each of the descriptions and arguments in the judgment of this court, Gap 2, 3, and 4 (including partial numbers), the plaintiff could not engage in the work due to the quiton lines of the instant excavation season, not less than 20 minutes of driving early June 15, 2015, the plaintiff could not engage in the work due to the lack of operation, etc., and accordingly, borrowed the excavation season from another person. The plaintiff requested repair of the excavation season from another person; the plaintiff requested repair on several occasions thereafter; the plaintiff did not use the excavation season of this case after June 15, 2015, and left the industrial company without using the excavation season of this case; the plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the defendant on April 27, 2016, demanding the recovery of the extraction season and the return of the purchase price.
According to the above facts, the sales contract of this case was impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract due to the defect of the excavation season, and for this reason, the contract was lawfully rescinded by the plaintiff's expression of intent to cancel the contract.
Therefore, the defendant shall restore the plaintiff to the original state according to the termination of the contract.