beta
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.07 2016가단210503

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to take over the facilities and operating rights of the three-story Da building located in the Sungnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “D building”) and the three-dimensional studs located in the rooftop resting room (a multi-picker 1, a cans board 2, and hereinafter “instant keys”).

B. After the conclusion of the instant contract, the Defendant presented to the Plaintiff a contract for the installation and operation of vending machines which was concluded with the Plaintiff regarding the installation and operation of the said vending machines (hereinafter “instant operating contract”), but thereafter, it was clearly stated that the Defendant forged the seals of Mando Co., Ltd. and forged the said contract.

C. From September 2012, the Plaintiff operated the instant self-reader in the D Building. Around April 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the removal of the said self-reader in Mando Co., Ltd. to no longer operate its business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 7 through 15 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff trusted the operation contract of this case forged and paid the Defendant the remainder of KRW 27 million under the instant contract.

Therefore, the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiff for the damages of KRW 17250,000 incurred by the Plaintiff’s failure to operate the instant self-reader or return the said money by fraud to the Plaintiff.

B. Although the two cans among the cans were leased, the Defendant concluded a contract by calculating the value of the cans as KRW 10 million with hiding it at the time of the contract of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff shall be liable to compensate for the said money.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the Defendant forged the instant operational contract, and according to the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 and 16 (including the serial number).