[2] Where multiple contracts have been concluded, the criteria to determine whether the entire contract is indivisible, and where the expression of intent to revoke deception of a single contract has the effect of revocation of the entire contract

[3] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in holding that only the premium contract was revoked, separately from the lease transfer contract and the lease transfer contract, in case where Gap alleged that the transferee of the right of lease Eul concluded with Eul on the ground of the transferor Eul's deception was revoked or cancelled,

[2] In a case where multiple contracts have been concluded, whether the entire contract is indivisible as if it were a single contract ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and purpose of the conclusion of the contract, the intent of the parties, etc. In a case where each contract was concluded as a whole in an economic and factual manner, one of which is deemed to have been committed as a whole, and the parties would have not expressed any other intent without any existence, the declaration of intent to revoke the deception of a single contract is effective in accordance with the legal principle of partial invalidation and revocation of a juristic act, which is in conflict with the theory of partial invalidation.

[3] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which held that only the premium contract was revoked separately from the lease transfer contract was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to omission of judgment on the lease transfer contract or the scope of revocation of the contract, in light of the process of concluding the lease transfer contract and the premium contract and the details of the contract, etc., in case where Gap of the right of lease claims revocation or cancellation of the lease transfer contract and the premium contract entered into with Eul on the ground of the transferor Eul's deception, since the above premium contract was combined with the lease transfer contract and the lease transfer contract were executed in whole in an economic and factual manner, and without any one cause, the whole contract was made in combination with the lease transfer contract and the parties did not wish any other.

1. After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the “instant premium contract” was revoked on the grounds that the Defendant’s act was an unlawful deception that deviates from social norms, and there was causation between the deception and the conclusion of the contract, and that the Plaintiff revoked the contract by delivery of a copy of the complaint.

However, according to the records, since the plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the contract of lease transfer and the premium contract of this case were cancelled or cancelled, there is no lack of withdrawal of the claim for cancellation or cancellation of the contract of lease transfer until the closing of argument in the court below. Nevertheless, the court below revoked only the premium contract for the reasons stated in its holding, and did not render a judgment as to the assertion,

2. Payment of premiums to be paid in connection with the lease of a commercial building does not constitute a content of a lease agreement, and the premium itself is a transfer of intangible property value, such as tangible business facilities, fixtures, etc., or tangible property, such as business facilities, customers, credit, business know-how, or business interest in accordance with the location of a store or store, or a cost for use for a given period (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da25013, Jul. 26, 2002; 2010Da85164, Jan. 27, 201, etc.). It is a separate contract that is separate from a lease agreement or a lease agreement, etc.

On the other hand, when multiple contracts have been concluded, whether the entire contract is indivisible as it is a single contract should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and purpose of the conclusion of the contract, the intent of the parties, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da54659, May 16, 2003; 2004Da54633, Jul. 28, 2006; 2004Da54633, Jul. 28, 2006; one of them is deemed to have been performed as a whole in economic and fact, and the parties would have not expressed any other intent without any one of them. The expression of intent to revoke the deception of a single contract has the effect of revocation of the entire contract in accordance with the legal principle of partial revocation of a juristic act, which takes part with the theory of partial invalidation of a juristic act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da31191, Sept. 9, 194).

Examining the record in light of the above legal principles, when considering all the circumstances such as the transfer contract of right of lease of this case and the conclusion process of the premium contract, the premium contract of this case should be deemed to have been performed as a whole in an economic and factual manner in combination with the lease transfer contract of this case, and without any existence, the premium contract of this case should be deemed to have been performed as a whole in an economic and factual manner. Thus, if the court below judged that there was a ground for revocation of the premium contract of this case, it shall not be removed separately from the part of the premium contract, and therefore, if it was determined that there was

3. As above, the lower court determined that the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 240 million premium to the Plaintiff as a legal effect following the cancellation of only the premium contract by omitting judgment on the right to lease transfer contract or cancelling only the premium contract by separating it from the right to lease transfer contract. In so doing, the lower court should have deliberated and determined the scope of the obligation to return unjust enrichment when the right to lease transfer contract is revoked together.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s revocation of only the part of the premium contract was erroneous by omitting judgment or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of revocation of the contract, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)