Fraudulent Contract | Client Sued for Return of Unjust Enrichment on Grounds of an Alleged Fraudulent Contract Rebuts the Fraud Claim and Wins the Case

The Daeryun attorney first reviewed the circumstances at the time the contract was formed, and the review confirmed the following facts.

• The sale contract was not a contract concluded on the condition that a loan would be secured.
• There was no fact that the clients had promised to arrange a loan directly.
• Even after the contract, although information was provided to help the loan proceed at the plaintiff's request, there was no fact that a loan had been guaranteed.

Accordingly, through a brief, the attorney emphasized that the sale contract in this case was not a contract concluded on the condition of a loan and that the clients had no obligation to arrange a loan.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants had arranged a loan by means of false employment, but the Daeryun attorney pointed out the following.

• A loan obtained through false employment is a method with a possibility of illegality.
• No objective evidence exists that there was any explanation of such a loan method at the time the contract was formed.
• There are circumstances indicating that the plaintiff himself made efforts to proceed with the loan for a considerable period after the contract was formed.

The attorney also emphasized that the materials submitted by the plaintiff alone were insufficient to establish that the clients had guaranteed a loan or engaged in deception.

The Daeryun attorney responded to the plaintiff's claim that the contract was void, centering on the following arguments.

• The sale contract was already in a state of performance, including partial payment of the down payment.
• There was insufficient evidence to establish that there had been any deceptive act at the time the contract was formed.
• The loan condition asserted by the plaintiff had never been settled as a term of the contract.

Accordingly, the attorney actively argued that the rescission of a fraudulent contract or the liability for return of unjust enrichment asserted by the plaintiff did not arise.

The crux of this case was whether a deceptive act had in fact existed during the contract process.

The court determined that the mere circumstance that a loan did not proceed after the contract was not, in itself, sufficient to establish a fraudulent contract or a deceptive act.

In particular, the following points carried significant weight.

• Whether there was a promise to guarantee a loan at the time the contract was formed
• Whether objective evidence existed to prove the deceptive act
• The actual conduct of the parties after the contract

Even if the other party asserts a fraudulent contract in a contractual dispute, liability may not be established unless the deceptive act and the causal relationship are actually proven.

The fraudulent contract at issue in this case was based on the assertion that, during the formation of the real estate sale contract, the explanation regarding whether a loan was possible and the manner in which the loan would proceed differed from the truth, and that the plaintiff entered into the contract as a result.

In other words, the plaintiff argued that the clients had induced the formation of the contract by indicating that a loan was possible or that they could arrange a loan through false employment, and contended that if such a deceptive act existed, the contract should be rescinded and the money already paid should be returned.

The clients, on the other hand, rebutted that the loan was at all times a matter for the plaintiff to pursue on his own, and that the sale contract was likewise not a conditional contract premised on the loan being secured.

In a fraudulent contract dispute, the mere circumstance that a contract was not performed as expected does not establish fraud.

Therefore, when one must defend against a claim of a fraudulent contract, it is important to comprehensively review the materials from before and after the formation of the contract, such as the contract, text messages, call records, and remittance records, and to determine the direction of the response.

At Daeryun, criminal defense attorneys, civil attorneys, the Evidence Investigation Center, and the Digital Forensics Center collaborate for clients who are suffering harm from a fraudulent contract claim, accompanying them not only in the civil case response but also through all related legal procedures.

If you need legal assistance in a related matter, please proceed with the firm's 🔗legal consultation appointment.