손해배상(기)등
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the court of first instance.
The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for further determination as to the matters alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for appeal and the matters alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for incidental appeal as set forth in paragraph (3) below. Thus, this Court cited this case as it is included in summary under the text of Article 420 of the
2. (a) On the 6th of the judgment of the first instance, the part which was used after the completion shall be subject to the registration of provisional seizure by G, “(the registration of provisional seizure shall be limited to Pyeongtaek-si C. 741m2 in each of the instant real estate)” and “registration of provisional seizure by G.”
(b) Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance was written with "each description of Eul 1 to 3, 8 through 10" as "each description of Eul 1 to 3, 8 through 11."
3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no refusal of performance by the plaintiff, and that the defendant's expression of intent to cancel is not clear (related to the plaintiff's appeal) was rejected by the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not refuse to implement the contract
The F, which is not the Plaintiff, returned relevant documents, such as a written consent to change the name of the owner, to the Defendant following the change of the business method, cannot be recognized as the Plaintiff’s intent to refuse the performance
The Defendant did not express the explicit intent of rescission of the instant sales contract through content certification, etc. as before, and rather, intended to continue the instant construction business and the instant sales contract.
Nevertheless, the first instance court's consent to change the name of the owner of the complex at the end of July 2015 and related documents are to the defendant.