매매대금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added the judgment as stated in paragraph 2 below to the "F" in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "B", and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on addition
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land sales contract was cancelled for the following reasons, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the purchase price and the penalty equivalent to the down payment received from the Plaintiff.
① Since the instant contract for the sale of land and the instant construction contract for the construction of a detached house on its ground constitute a single house, all of the instant contract for the sale of land may be rescinded on the ground of the nonperformance of obligations regarding the instant construction contract.
However, the Defendants expressed their intent to refuse performance by returning to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 43.5 million, which was paid by the Plaintiff on April 15, 2016, when the Defendants did not proceed with the new construction of a detached house by the fixed deadline.
On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed its intent to cancel the instant land sales contract due to the Defendants’ delay of performance or refusal of performance.
② Even if the instant land sales contract and the instant building construction contract are separately entered into a separate contract, so long as the instant building construction contract was rescinded by the declaration of intention on May 30, 2016, the instant land sales contract stipulating to pay the remainder within 20 days after the completion of the housing cannot be implemented. Thus, the Defendants were not able to perform the instant land sales contract.
Therefore, the Plaintiff expressed his intention to cancel the sale contract of the instant land due to the impossibility of performance by the delivery of the complaint of the instant case.
③ The Plaintiff and the Defendants are the instant land around April 1, 2016.