(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.18 2016가단49021

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.18 2016가단49021

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

On March 3, 2010, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant 340 million won a benen motor vehicle.

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff should pay 90 million won to the plaintiff as compensation for non-performance of obligation or tort.

In other words, the plaintiff knew that the driving distance of the motor vehicle is 11,449km as indicated on the instrument board, and paid 340 million won as the purchase price.

However, the actual driving distance was 25,477 km, and the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of such fact despite being aware of such circumstances.

The defendant's act that did not notify the important matters of a sales contract constitutes tort or default, and the plaintiff was bound to sell the vehicle at KRW 250 million, so the difference is that the defendant should compensate for the difference of KRW 90 million.

In relation to the Defendant’s fault, it is reasonable to deny it according to the following circumstances, which can be known by integrating the entries of No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

C operated the driving distance of the vehicle meter board, and around July 31, 2007, sold the vehicle to the Defendant in KRW 450 million.

The Defendant driven 3,000 km for about two years, and received the amount determined according to the driving distance of 11,449 km on the vehicle plate and sold the automobile to the Plaintiff.

Considering this, the Defendant may be deemed to have purchased an automobile from C and sold it to the Plaintiff without knowing the fact that the driving distance was actually changed.

In the end, it is difficult to view that the defendant, who did not know that the driving distance was operated, did not notify the right driving distance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the error of the defendant cannot be accepted.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2011.05.26 2010가합109591

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.27 2013고단3602 (1)

-서울북부지방법원 2015.08.11 2015고단1026

-서울북부지방법원 2015.09.08 2015고단1026 (2)