계약금반환
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant shall be the defendant of KRW 35 million and the defendant shall be the plaintiff from January 18, 2014 to January 8, 2015.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in Articles 1 and 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of some of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Attachment] The second part] The second part "15 million won" in the 19th sentence shall be deemed "5 million won".
Article 20 and 21 of the 2nd one is the general transaction practice to determine the amount equivalent to 10% of the deposit in ordinary real estate lease as the contract deposit and to agree with it as a penalty for breach of contract. The estimated amount of compensation for damages under the lease contract of this case is the amount equal to 60% of the deposit of this case. The determination of the contract deposit as the contract deposit was based on the Defendant’s circumstances that require urgent money at the time (the testimony of the witness E), including the fact that it was based on the Defendant’s economic status and financial status, purpose and contents of the contract, the scheduled details and motive of the contract, the estimated amount of damages, the estimated ratio of the amount of damages, the estimated amount of damages, the estimated amount of damages, the transaction practices at the time, and the economic conditions.
The third party's "5 million won" as "5 million won", and the third party's "45 million won" as "35 million won."
The third side's third side's " June 26, 2014" is deemed to be " January 8, 2015".
The third-class 14 to 18 shall be advanced as follows.
In addition, the defendant asserts that the lease contract of this case was cancelled due to the plaintiff's default because the plaintiff did not perform the contract even though he agreed to pay 101,595,600 won in the first sale of the building of this case which he must pay in July 30, 2013. However, the defendant argued that the contract of this case was cancelled due to the plaintiff's default due to the plaintiff's default because he did not perform the contract at the time of payment on behalf of the plaintiff. However, the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 13-2, and evidence Nos. 13-2, and testimony of E and F are the purport of the whole pleadings as well as witness E's testimony.