선급금반환 청구
1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 130 million to the Plaintiff the annual interest rate of KRW 15% from June 15, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
1. On December 27, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to be supplied with aggregate after advance payment of aggregate (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant. Article 4 of the instant contract provides, “If the Defendant loses the contract in an administrative appeal on January 28, 2013 or fails to produce aggregate within three months, “a cancellation” of the said contract appears to mean “a cancellation”. Considering that the contract is deemed to have been made and immediately returned to the advance payment, an individual guarantor B and C must return the advance payment.” As such, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000 on the day of the contract, and KRW 3,00,000 on January 24, 2013, as the Plaintiff was not provided with aggregate, the parties to the instant contract pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 do not conflict with each other or may recognize the existence of any evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 3.
2. The parties' assertion
A. Since the contract of this case was rescinded by the plaintiff, the defendant must return the amount of KRW 130 million to its original state.
B. Article 4 of the instant contract provides that the obligation to return advance payment shall be borne only by the individual guarantor B and C upon the rescission of the contract. Thus, the Defendant does not bear the obligation to return.
3. The following circumstances revealed in the statement No. 1 of the judgment, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) where a contract is terminated, the contractual party bears the duty to restore to the original state; (ii) the Defendant, the contractual party of the instant case, also bears the duty to restore to the original state; and (iii) the purport of excluding the Defendant from the obligor, even if based on the language and text of Article 4 of the instant contract, cannot be interpreted as follows.