beta
Text
All appeals by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' preliminary claims added by this court are dismissed.
An appeal.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment by this court under paragraph (2) of this Article, thereby citing this case as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. An abbreviation of the judgment on the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff in this court is governed by the judgment of the court of first instance.
In all trade names, the entry “stock company” is omitted.
The Plaintiffs asserted that, if the instant sales contract was null and void as a juristic act in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, the Defendant added the conjunctive claim seeking the return of the said money by asserting that “if the instant sales contract was null and void as a juristic act in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, the Defendant shall return each
B. The Defendant asserts that the above down payment constitutes illegal consideration and thus, the Plaintiffs cannot seek a return. We examine whether the return was made or not.
1) According to the relevant legal doctrine and Article 746 of the Civil Act, in a case where the benefit constitutes illegal consideration and there is an illegal cause to the provider, the beneficiary may not seek the return of the illegal consideration in principle by preventing the beneficiary from claiming the return of the illegal consideration. However, in a case where the illegality of the beneficiary is remarkably larger than that of the provider and the illegality of the provider is weak, it goes against the fairness and the principle of good faith to ensure that the provider’s claim for return is not allowed even if the provider lacks the illegality, and thus, in such a case, the beneficiary’s claim for return is allowed as it is excluded from the application of the main sentence of Article 746 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da12947, Dec. 10, 1993; 2004Da50426, Feb. 15, 2007).