(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.01 2014가합574957

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.01 2014가합574957

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant premium contract”) under which the Plaintiff acquired from the Defendant the right and business facilities (excluding the instant store, house storage and main facilities) in accordance with the geographical interest of the store located in the first floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul East Building (hereinafter “instant store”) in KRW 150,000 for premium payments (hereinafter “the instant premium contract”), and paid the Defendant KRW 15,000,000 as down payment on the date of the contract, and around October 31, 2013, the remainder amount of KRW 135,000,000 for premium payments and KRW 150,000 for premium payments.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, prior to the conclusion of the instant premium contract, was KRW 84,00,000 to KRW 87,00,000 per month on the sales of the instant store. This is the case where the instant store and the Defendant’s other store located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, which is the Defendant’s operation, were included in the sales of the instant store, such as the sales of the instant store, and the case cream (in particular, the instant store sales, such as the case where the very large portion of the sales of the instant store is larger), and the sales of the instant store do not exceed that of the instant store.

The Plaintiff entered into the instant premium contract by falling under the Defendant’s deception on the sales of the instant store, and paid KRW 150,000 to the Plaintiff according to the said contract, which constitutes the Plaintiff’s fraud.

Therefore, the Plaintiff primarily sought payment of KRW 150,000,000 equivalent to the premium of this case, among the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s tort, and the Plaintiff’s conjunctive cancellation of the premium contract of this case on the ground of fraud, and sought restitution of KRW 150,000,000 as a result of restitution.

B. First of all, the Defendant’s judgment is the instant case.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.12.19 2018나20851

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.14 2020나28381

-서울동부지방법원 2017.12.14 2017가단102496

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.11.22 2016가단59136