beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) subsequent to the first instance court’s decision No. 33, No. 18, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment due to nonperformance of the notification of exercise of options added by the court of first instance is added to the following judgment No. 2; and (b) No. 42, No. 13, and No. 51, No. 42, and No. 51, No. 42 and No. 6 of the first instance court’s decision, “decision on claim for damages due to breach of obligation to protect customers” are as stated in the reasoning for the first instance judgment, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence
2. Determination as to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the ground of non-performance of the notice of option 6-1.
A. According to the monetary option transaction agreement delivered by the Plaintiff’s assertion while entering into the instant contract, Article 2(2) of the said agreement provides that “If the purchaser has notified the exercise of the said monetary option, the customer and the bank shall exchange or pay the corresponding amount in accordance with the transaction certificate as set out on the settlement date,” and Article 3(1) of the said agreement provides that “the exercise of the option is established by giving the purchaser notice to the seller orally or otherwise by the time when the exercise is notified during the day of the exercise or the exercise period during which the exercise is held. In the absence of such notice by the end of the exercise period, the purchaser shall be deemed to waive the exercise of the option.”
However, since the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the exercise of the call option, it is deemed as waiver of the defendant's exercise of the call option pursuant to the above provision, and the settlement amount under the contract of this case paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on the premise of the exercise of the call option is all without any legal grounds
Therefore, the defendant should return 14,853,020,000 won paid by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
(b) judgment;