소유권이전등록
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) receives KRW 15,500,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
1. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase a ship listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant ship”) on October 22, 2015 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff paid the Defendant a down payment of KRW 2 million on the date of the instant contract. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff paid an additional payment of KRW 1 million on February 20, 2016, as part of the purchase price on November 18, 2015, which is the remainder payment date, pursuant to the purport of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the entire pleadings. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement the transfer of ownership registration procedure with respect to the instant ship on the grounds of the instant sales contract.
On July 11, 2018 after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant asserted that the instant sales contract was cancelled by depositing KRW 4 million, which is a part of the down payment of the instant sales contract, and KRW 1 million deposited by the Plaintiff, and notifying the Plaintiff thereof. However, pursuant to Article 565(1) of the Civil Act, the recipient of the down payment may cancel the sales contract by repaying the double amount until the other party commences the performance of the contract. However, on November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff started the performance of the contract by paying KRW 1 million as part of the purchase price to the Defendant on November 18, 2015. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was a loan unrelated to the instant sales contract, or that the Plaintiff paid at will regardless of its request. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge such assertion, and it is difficult to believe that the seller paid part of the remainder before the buyer’s request was made arbitrarily.
The defendant cannot rescind the sales contract of this case by repaying a double amount of down payment, and the defendant's defense is without merit.
On the other hand, however,