계약금반환 청구의 소
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff A is the representative director of Plaintiff D, and the Plaintiffs are married.
B. The Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with the Defendant with the following terms:
1) On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff A is the land indicated in attached Table 1 between Defendant and E, and the land indicated in attached Table 1 of Defendant and E’s joint ownership (hereinafter “instant land”).
(2) On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 900 million; KRW 95 million for the intermediate payment; KRW 65 million for the intermediate payment, May 16, 2017; KRW 740 million for the remainder payment; and KRW 65 million for the intermediate payment; and accordingly, Plaintiff B paid KRW 90 million for the intermediate payment and KRW 65 million for the intermediate payment. On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff B entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on May 16, 2017; KRW 50 million for the land listed in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant two land”); KRW 35 million for the intermediate payment; KRW 35 million for the intermediate payment; KRW 45 million for the remainder payment; and KRW 500 million for the intermediate payment, KRW 50 million for the intermediate payment and the intermediate payment pursuant to the sales contract.
3) As the special terms and conditions of each of the above sales contracts, the above two contracts concluded that only one of the two contracts may not be terminated. On the other hand, on September 28, 2017, the Defendant deposited KRW 65 million for the Plaintiff A, KRW 35 million for the Plaintiff B, and KRW 100 million for the Plaintiff as an amount of KRW 2850,000,000 for the branch court of the Incheon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2850, Sept. 28, 2017).
2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiffs asserted that each of the instant land was purchased to use it as a bus garage, and thereafter, the urban planning to include part of the instant land as a park site became final and conclusive, and the purpose of the contract could not be achieved.
This is a case where the situation at the time of contract conclusion is significantly changed.