부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the lower court’s explanation regarding the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the modification to “ January 30, 201,” which read “ January 30, 201,” under Articles 7 and 9 of the judgment of the first instance as “ January 30, 2012,” and thus, it is consistent with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Plaintiff asserts that in relation to the primary claim, it was concluded a sub-lease contract in this case by deception or mistake that the right of the sub-lease will be guaranteed for a long time. However, one of the lessors appears to have prepared a confirmation document (Evidence A8) to the effect as above that “A had an intention to seek a direct lessee, not by the method of sub-lease due to the default of time, and had an intention to extend the contract in absence of the rent in arrears.” It is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was unaware of the period of sub-lease. It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant could not sub-lease without the lessor’s consent (Article 629(1) of the Civil Act to confirm the lease and sub-lease period at the time of concluding the sub-lease contract in this case, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was unaware of this part by making it difficult for the lessor to confirm the lease and sub-lease period at the time of concluding the sub-lease contract in this case. Considering the fact that the initial investment cost for restaurant business as well as the collection of the premium in this case, it appears to have not taken into account the foregoing circumstances.
It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff entered into the instant sub-lease contract by mistake.
Even if the sub-lease contract of this case was concluded, it is fraudulent or.