beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The part concerning the creditor subrogation claim added by the plaintiff A at the trial.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion is added as set forth in paragraph (2) below.
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiffs asserted that they are commission agents under Article 101 of the Commercial Act entrusted by the defendant with the sale of membership in this case, and bear the duty of direct seller pursuant to Article 102 of the Commercial Act. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant entered into a sales contract with the plaintiffs as commission agents on the other' own account under their own name. Thus, the above plaintiffs' assertion
B. The plaintiff Gap, upon the cancellation of the membership agreement of this case for reasons of non-performance, acquired a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to 600,000 U.N. against D, and the defendant who was transferred from D to 360,000,000 of the above price shall return it to D as unjust enrichment. Thus, the plaintiff Eul asserts that the above plaintiff Eul, in subrogation of insolvent D in order to preserve the above claim for return of unjust enrichment against D, sought payment of unjust enrichment of the above 365,00 UN (Korean Won 65,05,60 won) from the defendant.
As alleged by Plaintiff A, the instant membership agreement was rescinded on the ground that the instant membership agreement was impossible to perform.
Even if D, not a party to the above sales contract, cannot be deemed to have the obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the price to the above Plaintiff, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge that D is insolvent only with the statement of evidence No. 8, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the above Plaintiff’s subrogation claim is unlawful as there is no need for preservation claim and preservation.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff A's appeal for subrogation of creditor is unlawful.