(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.09.15 2015나2823 | 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 2015.09.15 2015나2823

매매대금반환

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The following facts may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence A Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings:

1) On April 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) between the Defendant and the Defendant, the Defendant and the Plaintiff, respectively, shall be subject to the Oral Fishery Processing Machinery (hereinafter “instant Machinery”).

(1) The Plaintiff shall make and deliver a contract (including value-added tax of KRW 1,350,000) to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 14,850,000 (including value-added tax of KRW 1,350,00)

A) Around that time, the Plaintiff concluded a contract. Around that time, the Plaintiff received the instant machinery from the Defendant, and paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant as part of the price of the instant machinery on May 7, 2014. (2) On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 1 million to the Defendant, and transferred the said money to the account in the name of the Defendant.

3) While the Plaintiff was running a studal on the instant machine, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to repair the instant machine because the instant machine does not work normally and is too high in the defect rate of the machinery. At the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant repaired the instant machine several times, and subsequently reworking the instant machine, but the instant machine was not operated normally. (B) The Defendant was a person who returned the instant machine and recovered it (the Defendant’s objection against the payment order issued on August 14, 2014 and reply thereto).

A. For the purpose of the rescission of an agreement, the requirement is that a mutually conflicting declaration of intent, such as the offer and acceptance of the contract, is consistent, as in the case of general formation of the contract.

However, since the rescission of a contract can be made implicitly as well as explicitly and explicitly, if the lack or waiver of the intent to realize the contract between the parties after the contract is objectively consistent with the contents of their intent expressed in both parties.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.02.18 2014가합24201

-부산지방법원 2019.03.19 2017가단334250

-대구지방법원 2018.02.07 2017나9259

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.12.29 2016가합51300

-수원지방법원 2017.06.07 2016나75630