매매대금반환
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The instant sales contract states the total purchase price of KRW 8,00,000,000, and the down payment of KRW 750,000,000. However, the Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendant, in fact, agreed that the purchase price was KRW 8,050,000,000, and the down payment was KRW 8,000,000. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, etc. paid KRW 8,00,000 as the down payment to the Defendant until November 1, 2017.
However, the defendant asserts that he agreed 750,000,000 won and received 50,000,000 won out of the down payment of 800,000,000 won paid by the plaintiff et al., and the plaintiff et al. violated the principle of good faith, and thus the plaintiff et al. cancelled the sales contract of this case.
Therefore, the defendant is obliged to return the down payment of KRW 800,000 to the plaintiffs who have taken over all other buyers' rights.
B) Also, the instant sales contract is the H building owned by the Plaintiff A and the I building owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “a separate shop”).
(2) In the event that the sales contract was cancelled due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the obligation to pay the remainder, the sales contract was concluded on the condition that the remainder is paid under the instant sales contract, and the said condition was not fulfilled. Therefore, the instant sales contract was not rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the obligation to pay the remainder, and the Defendant is obligated to return the down payment of KRW 800,000 to the Plaintiffs. (2) Even if the instant sales contract was rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the obligation to pay the remainder, the said contract deposit constitutes an estimated amount of damages, and thus, the said amount should be reduced to be unfairly excessive. The Defendant is obligated to return the reduced amount