공사계약금 반환
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 5,00,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from April 24, 2014 to January 28, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 7, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract for the construction of a new house with the Defendant in Namyang-si (hereinafter the above new construction contract referred to as “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant, and the said construction contract was determined as KRW 155,00,000.
B. On the same day, the Plaintiff paid 10,000,000 won to the Defendant according to the instant construction contract.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The Plaintiff revoked the instant construction contract by hearing that the Defendant could no longer proceed with the construction work due to the designation of the development restriction zone and the change in the building area.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 2,00,000,000, which was already returned from KRW 10,000,000, which was paid in advance, and the damages for delay.
B. Since the contract of this case is cancelled due to a cause attributable to the plaintiff or the architect office, the defendant is not obligated to return the down payment of KRW 10,000,000 to the plaintiff.
Even if the Defendant is liable to return the down payment to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s expenses, etc. incurred prior to the rescission of the instant construction contract shall be deducted from the above KRW 10,00,000.
3. Determination
A. The cancellation of a contract due to changes in circumstances refers to an objective circumstance, which served as the basis of the contract, and the occurrence of a significant change in circumstances that could not have been predicted by the parties at the time the contract was made, and the change in circumstances occurred for reasons for which the party who acquired the right to cancel is not responsible. If the binding force is recognized as stipulated in the contract, it is recognized as an exception to the principle of contract observance in cases where the result significantly goes against the good faith principle.