부당이득금반환
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
judgment of the first instance.
Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Grounds for the Judgment of the court of first instance, which shall be explained by the Korean court concerning this case.
A. The phrase “1” portion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, which is the same as that of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, after deducting the dismissal as described in the following paragraph 2, thereby citing it in accordance with the text
The Plaintiff, as the Defendant representative K’s fraud, led the application and enforcement of the instant provisional seizure in order to interfere with the Plaintiff’s business of the instant restaurant. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff sought the Plaintiff and made a verbal notification to withdraw from the instant building upon termination of the instant agreement. As such, the instant notification of termination was asserted as a genuine declaration of intent. However, the Plaintiff’s prior proof, including the evidence No. 44, 45, 46, and evidence No. 47-1 through No. 47, submitted at the trial, filed an application for the instant provisional seizure with L to interfere with the instant restaurant business.
It is insufficient to recognize that the instant agreement was notified that it would be terminated, and there is no other evidence.
The plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.
The lease contract of this case was prepared in the form of the defendant's request that the tax return should be required, but the defendant's notification of termination of this case was made from October 23, 2013 to prohibit the restaurant business of this case since October 23, 2013. Thus, the defendant fulfilled its duty to allow the plaintiff and G to use each of the building of this case, and the plaintiff lawfully terminated the agreement of this case by delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case where the plaintiff stated the declaration of termination as a result, so the defendant's unjust enrichment or liquidation money, which is the cost of the plaintiff's construction of each of the building of this case, from KRW 1,139,358,178.