beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Determination on the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 23,88,50 due to failure, cancellation, and invalidation of a sales contract on the goods supplied by an order such as POS automatic orders and new goods
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff received an order from the Defendant for the POS automatic order and the POS license, and confirmed through the POS system after being supplied with the POS license and the POS system. However, such an act of the Plaintiff is merely merely a system procedure and cannot be deemed as an expression of intent to purchase the pertinent goods, and thus no individual supply contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the goods supplied through the POS system. Even if it is deemed that the act of confirmation by the POS system can be deemed as an expression of intent to purchase the goods, the expression of intent to approve the purchase is: (i) the declaration of intention to return, namely, the declaration of intention to reserve the right to cancel the contract; and (ii) the Plaintiff exercised the right to cancel the contract
② In the case of goods which are no need to be returned later, the declaration of intent based on the Defendant’s deception, which concluded that the goods may be returned without any intention to receive it, was revoked by the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.
(3) The above supply contract is in violation of the Franchise Business Act and is null and void as it constitutes an unfair trade practice.
Therefore, the individual supply contract on goods supplied due to orders such as POS automatic orders and new goods becomes invalid retroactively.
3. At present, the Plaintiff is a total of 2,224,80 won among the goods supplied through the automatic order of POS and the goods supplied through an order such as new products.