beta
Text
1. From May 23, 2017 to January 31, 2018, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 12,340,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this.
Reasons
1. Facts that the principal lawsuit or counterclaim has no dispute;
A. The Plaintiff, as a Chinese citizen, operates a mid-to-date store of the trade name “E” (hereinafter “E”) in the Jinju-si D 4 foot building, and the Defendants, as a married couple, operate a gas sales business under the trade name of “G” located in the Jin-si.
B. From around 2002, the Plaintiff was supplied with ELPG gas to be used for E from the Defendants. From the first to third level restaurant of E, the Plaintiff measured the volume of supply (in cubic metres) through measuring instruments, and supplied E-4 housing units by gas.
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. The plaintiff's assertion is running E with Chinese nationality as a bridge, but the exchange with Korean people also shows the lack of real life experience and so on. The plaintiff can be seen as china in the market situation.
The defendants used these weak points and supplied 2 times in the case of the installation of measuring instruments to general restaurants, etc., and 1.5 times in the case of the supply of measuring instruments to general restaurants, etc. The plaintiff has been aware that the prices offered by the defendants have been reduced to the same prices as general restaurants, and has traded 10 years or more without doubt.
The Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the gas price did not have been used for the art. The Plaintiff confirmed the gas price with abruptive response, and that the Defendants took a serious brupt in that process.
Although the period of living in Korea has long been long, there was a limit to Chinese people in social life, and the Defendants actively provided accurate information about gas prices. However, even though the Defendants actively provided accurate information about gas prices, the Plaintiff has a lack of social experience, and there has been almost two times wide by abusing the circumstances of absolute trust of the Defendants.