logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.05.24 2018나61177
부당이득반환청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 25, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to acquire the goodwill of “D” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) located in Yong-nam Mine-gun C (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) from the Defendant, and paid KRW 30,000,000 out of the said KRW 40,000 on the same day to the Defendant.

B. On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a building lease agreement with E, the owner of the said building. On April 29, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) did not hear an explanation in advance on the part that “the lessee is legally responsible for the household building; and (b) rescinded the said lease agreement with the lessor.”

C. On April 25, 2018, there was an assembly-type building (which is stipulated in the special agreement on the building lease agreement; hereinafter “instant assembly-type building”) used for the main purpose behind the instant restaurant, which was installed without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant, upon entering into the instant premium contract, revoked the said contract on April 30, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the main part of the instant restaurant, which is an important part of the instant premium contract, is an unauthorized building, that the main part of the instant restaurant is an illegal Stayer, and that the main part of the instant restaurant’s sales was not a mistake in the important part of the instant premium contract.

Preliminaryly, on April 29, 2018, the Plaintiff returned the key to the instant restaurant to the Defendant, and the Defendant expressed his intention to return part of the money received on the premise that the instant premium agreement has been invalidated.

arrow