beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s decision to recommend performance to the Plaintiff on October 21, 2015 by the Jeonju District Court 2015 Ghana53847.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a premium contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to “D” on the first floor of the 1st floor of the Yansan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was operated by the Plaintiff. On the day, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 5,000,000 to the down payment.
B. On October 20, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff by Jeonju District Court 2015Da53847, when cancelling the instant contract on the grounds of deception by the Plaintiff or mistake by the Defendant on the purchase price of alcoholic beverages.
C. On October 21, 2015, the Jeonju District Court rendered a decision on performance recommendation to the effect that, from September 5, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 5,00,000 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint, 5% per annum, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The said decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive around that time.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) that the plaintiff did not accurately inform the defendant of the purchase price of alcoholic beverages for the plaintiff's assertion, but it is not an important part indicated in the contract of this case, nor a deceiving the defendant. Thus, the defendant cannot cancel the contract of this case, and compulsory execution based on the defendant's decision of performance recommendation against the plaintiff should be rejected.
(2) As to the Plaintiff’s alleged purchase price of alcoholic beverages, the Plaintiff deceivings the Defendant to the effect that the Plaintiff had recorded the monthly maximum of KRW 8,500,000 for the Defendant, which led to the Defendant’s mistake in the important part of the instant contract, and thus, the contract of this case was revoked by the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff should return the instant down payment, interest or delay damages to the Defendant as unjust enrichment
(b) judgment misunderstanding;