위약금 등 청구
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
In the first instance court, the plaintiff and the joint plaintiff B of the first instance court claimed ① KRW 100,000,000 as the down payment, KRW 100,000,000 as the damages, and damages for delay as stipulated in the first instance contract, ② as the restitution following the cancellation of the second contract of this case, the plaintiff and the joint plaintiff B of the first instance court claimed KRW 100,000,000 as the down payment and the damages for delay as stipulated in the second contract of this case, ② as the restitution following the cancellation of the second contract of this case, the damages for delay as well as the penalty of KRW 100,000,00 as the damages, respectively.
The court of first instance declared that both the plaintiff and the joint plaintiff B's claim were dismissed, and only the plaintiff appealed against this judgment of first instance, but this court reduced the purport of the claim by the claim for refund of the down payment of KRW 50,000,000 paid by him. The joint plaintiff B of the first instance court did not file an appeal against the judgment of first instance.
Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the plaintiff's claim for the return of KRW 50,000.
The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows, and the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or added in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2).
Part 2, the “Plaintiffs” in Part 8 is used as “Plaintiffs and Joint Plaintiff B of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as “B”), and all of their “Plaintiffs” have been put into “Plaintiffs and B”.
Part 2, "No. 29, 2016" in Part 8 shall be applied "No. 26, 2016".
The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion on additional determination was that the Plaintiff failed to move into the instant commercial building house from July 2017 to October 2017, which was the scheduled date of moving into under the instant contract No. 1, and thus, the Defendant violated the instant contract.
The plaintiff has no effect since the second contract of this case was null and void or revoked.