계약금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase a house of KRW 142,000,000 and a house of KRW 133.6m2,00 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant and the Defendant, and agreed to pay a down payment of KRW 10,000 to the Defendant on the date of the contract, and pay the remainder of KRW 132,00,000 to the Defendant on August 20, 2014, and to deduct the remainder of KRW 45,00,000 from the existing lease deposit when the Plaintiff succeeded to the remainder.
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.
The contract of this case contains the following: “If the seller or the purchaser has failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of this contract, the other party may notify the person who has failed to perform the contract in writing and cancel the contract. The other party may claim damages arising from the cancellation of the contract respectively to the other party, and the contract deposit shall be deemed to be
C. After that, on December 16, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 19, 2014 on the instant real estate.
【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract was cancelled due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and sought restitution of KRW 10,000,000 due to its restitution.
First, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant did not perform its duty to cooperate in the secured loan procedure, such as obstructing appraisal procedures for the execution of the loan, while the Plaintiff agreed to obtain the instant real estate loan from a financial institution as collateral and appropriate
Second, on August 20, 2014, the remaining payment date of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the obligation to pay the remainder, but the Defendant did not perform the obligation to deliver real estate.
Third, the defendant's lawsuit of this case.