beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s decision on recommendations for advance payment in Suwon District Court 2014Gau40253 was made against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) determined the unit price per 20,000 won for LED L-N 24V products (hereinafter “instant goods”); (b) paid KRW 11,00,000,000 as the down payment to the Plaintiff; and (c) determined on March 21, 2014 for the delivery date of the instant goods, 30% until March 21, 2014 and the remaining quantity within ten (10) days thereafter.
B. On March 14, 2014, the Defendant expressed his intent to revoke the instant contract to the Plaintiff and reached the Plaintiff at that time.
C. The Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the advance payment KRW 11,00,000,000, with the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch Decision 2014 Ghana40253, on the ground that the instant supply contract was rescinded.
The instant lawsuit was concluded upon the confirmation of the decision on performance recommendation made on October 30, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant decision on performance recommendation”).
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In a lawsuit of demurrer against a final decision on performance recommendation, not only the grounds for extinguishing a claim after the decision on performance recommendation or preventing the exercise of a claim, but also the failure or invalidity of a claim before the decision on performance recommendation is a ground for objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da54999, Jan. 26, 2006). In addition, in a lawsuit of objection, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection in a lawsuit of objection is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in a lawsuit of objection, where the plaintiff asserts that the claim has not been established, the defendant is liable to prove the fact that the cause of the claim was established, and where the plaintiff claims facts that fall under the grounds for disability or extinguishment of a right, the plaintiff is liable
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010).