계약금반환
1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
The court's explanation on this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the "damage for Delay" under the 19th sentence of the 6th judgment of the court of first instance as "legal interest or delay damages" and the defendant's new argument in the court of first instance as to this case is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following determination as to new argument in the court of first instance
In the trial of the first instance on the Defendant’s new argument at the trial of the trial, the Defendant preliminaryly asserted that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant had not notified the other party of the performance of the contract at one time on or around December 2014, and the Defendant had not notified the F of the performance of the mutual contract until the completion of the registration of ownership transfer of the building of this case, or confirmed the cancellation of the contract. Accordingly, the instant sales contract asserts to the effect that the agreement was implicitly rescinded.
Judgment
In order to cancel an agreement formed by an agreement between the parties to the relevant legal doctrine, as in the case of the formation of a contract, a mutually conflicting declaration of intent, such as an offer and acceptance of an rescission contract to terminate the validity of an existing contract, shall be satisfied. To establish such an agreement, the content of intent expressed by both parties must objectively coincide.
In addition, the rescission of a contract may be impliedly made. However, in order to have the contract terminated implicitly, it is insufficient to say that both parties have failed to perform their remaining obligations over a long-term period of time when the contract was concluded and part of the contract was performed, thereby leaving the contract neglected. The parties’ intent not to realize the contract should be agreed upon due to the lack or renunciation of both parties’ intent to realize the contract after the conclusion of the contract. Where part of the contract has been performed, the restoration