beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 30, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract of KRW 28,760,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the 5-type vehicles manufactured by Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) (hereinafter “instant vehicles”) (hereinafter “instant vehicles”) with respect to introduction by Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) as to D’s business employees.
B. Around the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,00,000 as part of the purchase price by credit card. On December 4, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 22,400,000 from Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. as collateral, and paid KRW 21,459,200, out of which was paid KRW 22,40,00 as the purchase price.
C. Meanwhile, Defendant B sent the instant vehicle to C on December 4, 2012.
With respect to the instant vehicle, the new registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on December 4, 2012, and around 20 days on December 26, 2012, the registration of the transfer was completed in the name of the SPene Co., Ltd. on December 26, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff paid the price under the sales contract of this case, but the defendants did not perform their duty of delivery of vehicles until now.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for nonperformance or tort liability to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 32,160 automobile tax of KRW 30,090,090, which is an administrative fine of KRW 15,000,000, which is an administrative fine of KRW 29,572,058, which is an administrative fine of KRW 15,00,00,000, KRW 1,020,920, Hyundai Capital Capital Co., Ltd. for the principal and interest of KRW 26,829,95, KRW 1,643,893.
B. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether there was a right to subscribe for the instant vehicle to C is ultimately nonexistent, and therefore, the Defendants did not have the right to subscribe for the instant vehicle.