logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.02 2016나24870
물품대금
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 Plaintiff (former Co., Ltd.) is a multi-level marketing business entity whose business purpose is manufacturing and wholesale and retailing medical devices, cosmetics, food, health auxiliary foods, and wholesale and retail business.

B. On July 23, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a continuous commodity transaction agreement with the Defendant to supply the Plaintiff with both male and female booms and asphalts in the name of “Nemanix” to KRW 189,000 per sets (hereinafter “instant goods transaction agreement”). The instant goods transaction agreement (Evidence A 3) drafted at the time, provides for the following provisions as to the return of goods (hereinafter “instant return agreement”).

Article 5 [Return of Goods] (1) When the Plaintiff requests the return of the goods supplied by the Defendant due to defects, excessive inventory, and the Plaintiff’s suspension of sale, the Defendant shall immediately receive the return regardless of the contract period.

② When the Plaintiff paid the price for the goods supplied by the Defendant, the Defendant shall immediately return the goods and return the price for the goods to the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff demanded the return on the grounds set forth in the above paragraph.

C. From July 23, 2012 to April 15, 2015, the Defendant supplied various kinds of mixtures products to the Plaintiff according to the instant goods transaction contract. The Plaintiff settled and paid the price at which the delivery was made.

On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff suspended the sales of goods due to the rapid increase in withdrawal and return of the Plaintiff’s multi-level marketing salespersons due to the termination of the contract of the Korea Special Sales Financial Cooperative.

E. On June 2015, the Plaintiff knew of the Plaintiff’s discontinuance of sale and requested the Defendant to recover all the goods owned by the Plaintiff and refund the price already paid pursuant to the instant return agreement.

F. However, the defendant collects only a part of the goods which was not paid by the plaintiff, and has already received the price.

arrow