beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.04.19 2018나3469

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he was suffering from pains by the Defendant, and was solicited by the Defendant to use the cryposis, etc., and purchased 10/10 of drugs from the Defendant who visited the Plaintiff’s house on November 27, 2016. Moreover, the Plaintiff purchased crypines on two occasions on December 16 and December 24 of the same year and used crypines on two occasions.

The Plaintiff demanded that the Defendant discontinue the use of the above medicine, and that the Defendant send the medicine more. However, on January 8, 2017, the Defendant sent the medicine more. On November 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 4 million in total at KRW 1 million on November 8, 2017, and KRW 4 million on January 8, 2017.

However, the Defendant sold the products sold to the Plaintiff, even though they are not the medicine to cure the scopic pains, by deceiving the scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scop

In addition, the plaintiff heard the defendant's explanation that the product of this case has the effect of producing a string, and then purchased and recovered the product of this case from the defendant on November 27, 2016. However, on December 24, 2016, the plaintiff informed the defendant that he should no longer send the product of this case to the defendant. The plaintiff expressed his intention of withdrawing the contract within the period stipulated in Article 8 (3) of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the price of the product of this case.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of pages) as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground of deception, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff’s house on November 27, 2016 and sold enzyme products produced by Eul (hereinafter “instant products”) to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, added the instant products to the Plaintiff.