부당이득금반환 등
1. The judgment of the court of first instance rendered on September 4, 2014, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by the trial before remanding.
1. The Plaintiff’s scope of trial after remanding the case to the Defendant at the trial before remanding the case. ① The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s act, which included unfair terms and conditions, concluded on December 10, 2007 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and did not fulfill their duty to explain as prescribed by the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Contracts Regulation Act”), shall be null and void, or a juristic act which considerably loses fairness due to the party’s old-age, rashness, or inexperienced experience, of Article 104 and Article 104 of the Civil Act (unfair Juristic Act).
Any juristic act which is null and void as prescribed unfair juristic act, or which is contrary to the good morals and other social order under Articles 103 and 103 (Juristic Act Contrary to Social Order) of the Civil Act, shall be null and void.
Inasmuch as a juristic act contrary to the prescribed social order or the principle of good faith is null and void, or has been cancelled on the ground of fraud or mistake, or has been terminated on the ground of change of circumstances, the Defendant filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment with the Plaintiff to seek payment of 1,147,572,00 won for unjust enrichment and damages for delay. Meanwhile, the Defendant, upon entering into the instant currency option contract, made a claim for damages with the intent to seek payment of damages to the Plaintiff, to the effect that the Plaintiff was accused of the Plaintiff, or breached the duty of customer protection due to violation of the suitability principle and the duty of explanation, or breached the duty of ex post customer protection, the Defendant filed a claim for compensation with the Plaintiff for damages.
However, on November 13, 2013, the judgment prior to remand partially accepted the part concerning the claim for damages due to the violation of the suitability principle and the duty to explain among the plaintiff's claims, but the part concerning the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and the remaining part concerning the claim for damages were dismissed.
On the other hand, only the defendant appealed to the part against the defendant in the judgment before the remand, and the Supreme Court on September 4, 2014.