beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended as stated in the following two paragraphs; and (b) the foregoing provision is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “a judgment on the claim for return of unjust enrichment following the invalidation of the agreement of the same case,” as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Revised parts
A. The 2nd 7th 7th tier “Business” is a business with the same content as the modified Defendant had previously operated (hereinafter “instant business”).
B. From 4th parallels “.” up to 2nd parallels “from 4th parallels,” as follows, KRW 300 million was paid as down payment on February 28, 2013; and KRW 100 million was paid as part of the remainder over May 31, 2013 to August 27, 2013; and C paid as part payment to the Defendant on March 2, 2013.
(c) Nos. 6, 4, and 5 (including a Serial number, if any) of the 4 pages “(5)” are modified as follows:
D. Accordingly, the defendant is obliged to pay 200 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff as the damages for the above tort by modifying the following two from the 4th below to the 5th below.
(e) eliminate from 6 pages to 7 9 degrees.
3. The addition;
B. 1) The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's claim regarding the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the invalidity of the contract of the same case was that the plaintiff did not conclude the contract of the same case in the absence of the patent of this case. At the time of entering into the contract of the same case, the patent of this case was already extinguished and registered. Therefore, the contract of the same case is all null and void, and the defendant is obligated to return the KRW 200 million paid by the plaintiff to the defendant under the contract of the same case as unjust enrichment. 2)