Plaintiff

Korean Integration Co., Ltd.

June 26, 2015

Suwon District Court Decision 2014 Ghana37866 Decided October 2, 2014

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,530,000 won with 6% interest per annum from July 7, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 30, 2004, the Plaintiff subscribed to a mutual aid agreement (hereinafter “instant mutual aid agreement”) with Korea Light Lighting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Light Lighting Co., Ltd.”) on a monthly membership fee of KRW 30,00, total number of KRW 60, total number of subscription, and KRW 1,800,000 (hereinafter “instant mutual aid agreement”). From among the instant mutual aid agreement, the details pertaining to the cancellation and cancellation refund of the instant mutual aid agreement are as follows. The Plaintiff’s cancellation refund under the standard contractual terms and conditions of the instant mutual aid agreement is KRW 1,530,000.

Article 15 (Refunds for Termination and Termination of Contracts)

(1) A member may terminate a contract where he/she has no intention to use the commercial services.

(2) Where the circumstances of a member have been terminated, the company shall refund refund money for cancellation after deducting recruitment allowances, other management expenses, etc. from the payment made by the member, to the member within ten days from the date of application by the member.

B. The Plaintiff paid the monthly membership fee from September 30, 2004 to February 9, 2010.

C. Around May 2013, the Plaintiff sent the documents for filing an application for the termination of the instant mutual aid agreement, and on July 17 of the same year and September 25 of the same year, upon filing an application for the termination of the instant mutual aid agreement by telephone, requested the Plaintiff to pay the cancellation refund.

D. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant entered into an underwriting contract (hereinafter “instant underwriting contract”) with the light light light light light set by the Defendant, which accepts “the entire member’s commodity share (computer), the details of the amount of installment payments for each entire member (computer transfer), and the details of installment payments and deposits received from the entire member (computer transfer), etc.” (hereinafter “instant underwriting contract”). Of the instant underwriting contract, the content relating to the event and termination refund in the instant underwriting contract is as follows:

[Liability for any event and any refund for termination]

1) The responsibility for the service of an event (limited to funeral and crowdfunding) after the transfer is against the underwriter (the defendant refers to the defendant; hereinafter the same shall apply).

2) If a member intends to terminate a contract, he/she shall be liable to the transferor for the cancellation of the contract (one light light light straw; hereinafter the same shall apply) but the underwriter shall be liable for the termination of the standardized terms and conditions for the amount paid to the underwriter when the member has paid one or more installments to the underwriter.

3) The underwriter shall be liable for the refund to the transferor to the extent that there is any additional amount of deposit received for the termination.

Article 12 (Adjustment of Claims and Obligations)

The transferor shall be liable for the payment of the termination refund and the performance of the exercise of the refund money for the object created by the date of transfer, and the transferor shall be liable where there is a credit and obligation of the members.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the contract of this case was terminated, the plaintiff should be paid KRW 1,530,000 for the cancellation refund accrued therefrom, and damages for delay. Since the defendant acquired the status of the contractor under the contract of this case as the contract of this case with Han light light set and the contract of this case, the defendant must pay the cancellation refund, etc. to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff paid monthly membership fees to the light light light, and did not have paid to the Defendant, and the instant light agreement was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s termination notification, etc. before September 25, 2013, and the Defendant concluded the instant underwriting agreement with the light light light light set on October 1, 2013, which was later. Thus, the Plaintiff may seek the payment of the cancellation refund against Han light light set as the contractual party at the time of termination of the instant lighting agreement, apart from the fact that the Plaintiff may seek the payment of the cancellation refund against Han light set as the contractual party at the time of termination of the instant lighting agreement, as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant already accepted the obligation to pay the cancellation refund of the light set at Korea’s light set from Korea’

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)