부당이득 반환 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff is a company running luminous and co-rating business, and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) manufactures and sells co-rating agents, etc., and Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd.
From January 2017 to March 2018, the Plaintiff purchased free fluoring agents, fluor removal agents, acceleratoring agents, extreme dusts and block, fibering agents, fibering agents, and niting agents from the Defendant Company, and paid a total of KRW 420,604,669 to the Defendant Company.
[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 5 through 7 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument against the defendant corporation, the defendant corporation's assertion of revocation of the intention by fraud or invalidity of unfair conduct against the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant corporation has the world's highest technical ability in the field of automobile driving system, and two doctor's degree of D's degree of production and sale are very excellent in product performance. However, the defendant company did not directly research and development by doctor's degree in the defendant company, but did not produce products directly by doctor's degree in the defendant company, but rather by the defendant company's company's price at low price in the plaintiff company E (hereinafter "E"), which operates the same kind of business, removed the door-rating material attached to the container without any processing or by selling it to the plaintiff at low price.
This constitutes a fraudulent act that falsely notifies the specific facts about the important matters in the transaction, so that it can be criticized. The plaintiff's expression of intent to purchase the product is revoked with respect to the remaining portion of the product purchased from the defendant company.
Defendant Company: (a) sold the co-rating system purchased from Plaintiff E at approximately 3.6 times to approximately 8 times at low prices; (b) it constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Plaintiff is the Defendant Company.