해약금
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. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that the "1. Basic Facts" of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The gist of the argument was that the Plaintiff could deliver the leased real estate by December 15, 2015. The Defendant did not have the right to rescind the contract under Article 4(1) of the instant sales contract, and thus Article 4(2) of the instant sales contract stipulating the exemption of the cancellation fee does not apply to the Defendant. Nevertheless, as the Defendants unilaterally rescinded the instant contract and returned the down payment of KRW 120 million, the Defendants shall pay the Plaintiff the cancellation fee of KRW 120 million and its delay damages. As to the assertion, the Defendants refused to deliver the leased real estate on or before December 2, 2015 after the cancellation of the instant sales contract. The Defendants refused to deliver the leased real estate on or after December 2, 2015, which constitutes “when there is a concern that the delivery of the lessee would not take place.” In this case, the right to rescind the contract is unlawful because the Plaintiff, other than the instant sales contract under Article 4(3) of the instant sales contract, may not bring a lawsuit against the Plaintiff’s civil and criminal settlement.
B. In light of the facts as seen earlier and the purport of the parties’ assertion, in the event the right to rescind the contract under Article 4(1) of the instant sales contract arose to the Defendants, the Plaintiff entered into a non-civil or criminal complaint agreement for any reason other than the return of the down payment pursuant to Article 4(3) of the instant sales contract. The issue of the instant case is that the termination of the contract on December 2, 2015 by the Defendants is based on the right to rescind the contract under Article 4(1) of the instant sales contract.