Claim for refund of payment for pet dog with illness 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
Claim for refund of payment for pet dog with illness
Date
2021-03-08
Hit
704
The petitioner purchased from the respondent a pet dog (breed: Pomeranian, color: cream, sex: female, date of birth: December 22 2019, price: KRW 350,000) on March 7 2020. On March 15 that year, the pet caught the measles, and the petitioner took the pet to a vet that is a partner clinic to the respondent and paid the respondent KRW 300,000 for treatment. On March 29 that year, the pet healed completely, and the petitioner took the pet another vet, and the pet tested positive for coronavirus. Thus, the petitioner asked the respondent to take the pet back and compensate for the purchase price and the measles treatment expenses but the respondent refused, hence this dispute.
The petitioner asked the respondent to take the pet back and compensate for the purchase price and the measles treatment expenses, but the respondent refused, hence this dispute.
The respondent claims that the sales agreement in question is a ‘responsible sale’ where the respondent should not be responsible for treatment. However, the responsible sale clause in this agreement falls under the exemption of liability for warranty against defect under the Civil Act, and such a clause is provided in the agreement but both responsible and non-responsible sale clauses are mixed in the agreement, implying that the petitioner could not easily understand if under the agreement the petitioner should be responsible for any and all treatment expenses after purchase, and the fact that the petitioner had written the responsible sale clause in the agreement notwithstanding the non-responsible sale clauses contained therein alone does not demonstrate that the respondent gave the petitioner sufficient notification and explanations about the waiver of the respondent’s liability for warranty under the responsible sale clause, hence it should not deemed that the responsible sale clause was included in the agreement in question.
Furthermore, the responsible sale clause, i.e., the exemption of liability for warranty does not waive the respondent’s liability for the respondent’s failure to make notices of what the respondent had already known, or the establishment or transfer of rights to third parties. In this case, the pet was affected by the measles and coronavirus not long after the respondent handed it over to the petitioner, implying that it is very likely that the respondent had known about the measles and/or coronavirus infections but ignored it to sell the pet to the petitioner. In addition, the respondent received the pet back from the petitioner and handed it over to a third party despite the ongoing dispute, and this constitutes the establishment or transfer of rights to a third party, hence its liability is not waived under the warranty liability exemption clause. Therefore, the respondent should not be deemed waived from the responsibility for the pet’s treatment, and it is reasonable that the respondent pays the petitioner KRW 300,000 for the measles treatment.
Also, the petitioner claims that the purchase price of KRW 350,000 should be returned. Given that the respondent argues that the petitioner had expressed the intention to return and handed over the pet to the respondent, and the respondent had the pet treated for coronavirus and sold it to another consumer as it lost contact with the petitioner, and that the petitioner did not expressed any intention about the pet after handing it over to the respondent, it is already unviable that the respondent may re-hand over the object of this agreement to the petitioner, meaning the agreement, if it had been considered surviving, was defaulted, and the petitioner expressed the intention to return and actually returned the pet to the respondent, and the respondent did away with the pet. Such a disposition of the respondent should be deemed its consent to the petitioner’s intention to return and this agreement was cancelled by implicit mutual consent. Therefore, it is reasonable that the respondent, to effect restoration to the original state, returns the purchase price of KRW 350,000 to the petitioner.
Finally, it is reasonable that the respondent pays the petitioner KRW 650,000 that is the sum of the amounts stated above, KRW 300,000 and KRW 350,000
1. The respondent shall pay the petitioner KRW 650,000 no later than December 2 2020.
2. In the event that the respondent delays the payment payable under Paragraph 1, late-payment penalties at a rate of 6% per annum calculated from December 3 2020 to the date of full payment shall be added.
