손해배상(기)
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
The grounds of appeal are examined.
After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court: (1) concluded a contract with the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) on November 1, 2013 under which the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) transferred all of the premium, facilities, and equipment of the instant store operated by the Plaintiff to KRW 32 million (hereinafter “instant contract”); however, on November 27, 2013, determined that the Plaintiff’s return of KRW 26.8 million out of the price that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant was agreed upon by the original Defendant, and that the agreement was rescinded; (2) on the other hand, the lower court determined that the Defendant was obligated to return the instant store to F without the Plaintiff’s consent, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the store to F and received unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 46 million from the Plaintiff on March 24, 2014, based on a new lease agreement concluded with G lessor, and thus, the Defendant was not obligated to return the said amount from the Defendant’s right to the Plaintiff on March 24, 2014, 2014.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules
The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant without the authority to dispose of the goods owned by the Plaintiff to F, the Plaintiff was obligated to return the amount equivalent to the said goods to unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment was offset against the claim for return of price upon the cancellation of the agreement by the Defendant’s counterclaim, but the lower court omitted its judgment.
(b).