부당이득금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 123,31,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 12, 2016 to the day of full payment.
1. Basic facts
A. From November 20, 2012, the Defendant operated a three-story store of “D” (hereinafter “instant store”) from around November 20, 2012, which is “D” in the third floor of Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul building to conduct solar mining, pressing, skin management, etc.
B. On January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for acquisition of a business entity with respect to the goodwill, facilities, etc. of the store of this case (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 100 million, including the down payment of KRW 20 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 70 million on January 12, 2016, and the remainder of KRW 10 million on January 18, 2016.
C. Next, around January 14, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (a deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 3410,000, and one year from February 1, 2016) on the instant store as of February 1, 2016 with E, the owner of the building, and the date of the contract, and paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant in lieu of the deposit to be returned from E at the request of E.
On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the instant contract on the grounds of deception of sales, and the said notification reached the Defendant around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, 11, 14 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Defendant, while selling the instant store, deceivings sales while presenting false sales data, and concluded the instant contract by deceiving the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff revoked the instant contract by declaring its intent by deception.
B. The Defendant’s aforementioned deception not only constitutes a tort, but also the Defendant agreed to refund the premium in the event that sales data at the time of the instant contract were falsely stated.
C. Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.