beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 4,500,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from January 10, 2015 to May 19, 2016.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around November 2013, 2013, the Defendant: (a) mediated the sale of a list of transport machinery and appliances owned by the Plaintiff to C; and (b) received the price of KRW 8,500,000; (c) and (d) did not pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 3,50,000,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 5,000,000, which was appropriated as a security deposit for factory lease, which was agreed to be jointly leased. (b) The Defendant sold the automatic license machinery owned by the Plaintiff to D, and did not pay KRW 14,00,000, which was payable to the Plaintiff out of the price.
3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 17,500,000,000. (B) First, we examine the claim for the sales proceeds of the head of family.
Comprehensively taking account of the statements in Gap evidence 11 and Eul evidence 14 and the purport of the entire pleadings in witness E and F’s testimony, the plaintiff entered into a sales contract of KRW 45,00,000 with respect to the machines listed in the annexed machinery list owned by E and E (hereinafter “instant machines”) on October 2, 2014. At the time, the plaintiff entered into an agreement to pay KRW 10,000,000 out of the above sales amount, and the remaining KRW 35,00,000,000 on February 18, 2014. The defendant may recognize the fact that the non-Dong-dong list among the instant machines was sold to G (C) on January 3, 2014 in the amount of KRW 8,50,000,000.
However, as seen below, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff to sell the instant machinery and divide its profits. ② Accordingly, the Defendant paid 20,000,000 won to the Plaintiff. The said money was used for the payment of the purchase price of the instant machinery, ③ there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to intermediate the sale of a list, ④ the Defendant sold a list to G as a party who is not a broker, based on the fact of the above recognition alone.