beta
창원지방법원진주지원 2020.01.21 2019가단33698

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant was established as a regional housing association established for the purpose of constructing apartment units in Scheon-si D and supplying them to homeless persons, etc. (hereinafter “instant business”), and obtained authorization to establish an association on January 4, 2017.

B. On August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a membership agreement with the Defendant to be supplied with one household of an apartment unit “74-C” (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The Plaintiff confirmed that “the Defendant’s business plan consent to the alteration of the Defendant’s project plan and the project plan adjusted in the process of the promotion of the project in the future and does not raise any objection thereto,” and agreed that the finishing materials installed in the “Housing Promotion Center may be changed into other company products or products of at least the same level.” The Plaintiff signed and sealed each of the above agreements.

hereinafter each of the above written consents is successively named as the “project plan consent,” “written consent to change the Mapo Materials,” and “pre-written consent.”

C. Since then, the Plaintiff paid 51 million won in total to the Defendant’s side as a contribution to the association members and as a consulting service cost for the union’s business support. The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments.

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. The instant contract is invalid or revoked for the following reasons.

1) The instant contract is governed by the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Standardized Contracts Regulation Act”).

(2) At the time of entering into a contract, the Defendant did not properly explain the same to the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the contract, even though the written consent, written consent, written consent, and written prior consent, attached to the instant contract, lost fairness due to the Plaintiff’s significant disadvantage.