beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, even if the Defendant is not the seller of each of the instant sales contracts, the Defendant, as a kind of guaranteed liability, agreed to “to return or refund 100% of the products at issue,” the Plaintiff is obligated to comply with the Plaintiff’s demand for return and refund, and that the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff by failing to comply therewith.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, if the defendant's testimony at the end of August 18, 2016, which was issued for the plaintiff, does not correspond to Spe after the examination, it can be recognized that the defendant stated "the condition for refund of 100% of the down payment after mutual verification". However, the above estimate merely includes the defendant's proposal to the plaintiff in the sales contract to be concluded between the plaintiff and the seller in the future. The defendant, not the contracting party, seems to have not stated the above contents under the premise that he/she has the above obligation for return and refund, and the obligation to verify whether the above contents are included in the contract between the plaintiff and the seller under the above proposal is the plaintiff as the contracting party. Considering the above facts and witness testimony alone, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the defendant agreed directly to return and refund, or guaranteed the seller's obligation for return and refund.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so ordered.