beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims that have been reduced and added in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as follows: “The testimony of the witness F of the first instance court is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court,” and this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same in addition to adding “the testimony of the witness F of the first instance court” to “each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and
2. Determination on a claim for return of the premium, etc.
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant entered the details of cash sales into the system of the instant store in a false manner, fabricated them, notified the Plaintiff of the sales amount, etc. of the instant store. Since the sales amount of the instant store is an important factor in calculating the premium and the deposit money for lease, the Plaintiff revoked the instant contract on the grounds of deception by the Defendant.
B) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 100,000,000 for the instant contract and KRW 50,000,000 for the lease deposit, and interest thereon. (A) The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) the Defendant entered the details of cash sales into the Pos system of the instant store in a false manner; (b) did not induce the Plaintiff by notifying the Plaintiff of the sales amount, etc. of the instant store; and (c) the sales amount of the instant store is not an important element of the instant contract, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot cancel the instant contract on the ground of the Defendant’s deception. (b) The instant contract was revoked due to the Defendant’s deception.
Even if the Plaintiff operated the instant store for about 15 months, the scope of the premium to be returned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff should be reduced.
C. Since the Plaintiff’s duty to deliver the instant store following the cancellation of the instant contract and the Defendant’s duty to return the said premium and deposit for lease are concurrently performed, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff interest on the said premium and deposit for lease, and the instant store is delivered from the Plaintiff.