손해배상(기)
The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who operates a share investment club in a manner that provides stock investment information, such as opening a Kakao Stockholm group conference with fees from customers and recommending promising items of stocks and advising on the timing of purchase and sale of stocks.
B. On January 15, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for membership of a share club with a fee of KRW 3.52 million from January 16, 2019 to February 15, 2020. On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the fee to the Defendant on the same day.
C. On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to terminate the above contract on the ground that the price of the shares recommended by the Defendant decreased, and the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to modify the terms of the contract.
On January 21, 2019, the Plaintiff changed the terms and conditions of the said contract from January 22, 2019 to May 31, 2019, and 1.2 million won (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Defendant returned to the Plaintiff on the same day the difference between the existing fees and the existing fees.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the Defendant unilaterally produced the Plaintiff on March 5, 2019 during the contract term of the instant case to the Kakao Stockholm Group for share investment information sharing. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to refund the fees paid by the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant did not perform its duty to provide share investment information under the instant contract.
On the other hand, the defendant interfered with the defendant's business, such as making rules despite the prohibition of the plaintiff's conversation within the Kakakao Stockholm's office, making personal conversations at the above organization hosting, and fraud of the defendant's act of providing information, and the other investors resist and produce the plaintiff without any choice but without any choice. Therefore, the defendant's investment information is attributable to the plaintiff.