보관금 반환 등 청구의 소
1. Each appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and all the counterclaim claims added by this court.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: 1. The Plaintiff’s transfer of money to the Defendants and the preparation of a sales contract, etc. is the same as that of the Plaintiff’s statement on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part is cited in accordance
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. In the first place of the Plaintiff, each of the instant contracts is merely merely a written confirmation of receipt of the instant money, and cannot be deemed to have established a sales contract. Thus, the Plaintiff sought the return of the entire amount of the instant money, which is merely a custody deposit or an additional payment for sale, or the Defendants filed an impossible status by selling the instant land and buildings to a third party on February 26, 2019, and thus, the Plaintiff cancelled the sales contract with the Defendants and sought the return of the said money as restitution.
Preliminaryly, even if a sales contract was established between the Plaintiff and the Defendants and the sales contract was rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance, the down payment should be unjustly reduced as the liquidated damages, and thus, the remainder should be returned.
B. The Plaintiff is obligated to enter into a sales contract for the instant land and building and to pay KRW 70 million in total as down payment, among which the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million. The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 20 million, which is the estimated amount of the down payment and the estimated amount of the compensation for damages, to the Defendants.
3. Determination
A. The court shall recognize the existence and contents of the declaration of intent in accordance with its contents, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence to deny the contents of the document as to whether the contract for sale and purchase is established or not, so long as it is recognized that the document of disposition is authentic.
(See Supreme Court Decision 89Meu19153 delivered on March 27, 1990). The facts acknowledged earlier, and according to the purport of the testimony and the entire arguments of the witness I at the trial.