매매대금반환
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows. Eul evidence which is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion as evidence that is additionally submitted in the trial of the court of first instance, and Eul evidence which is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion is rejected. In addition to the dismissal of No. 4, No. 9, and No. 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance
[Attachment] One contract rescission and one claim for restitution, as seen earlier, the remainder payment date of the instant contract is to be paid immediately after the completion of the building. However, according to the special agreement, the Defendant shall transfer the registration of the instant land to the Plaintiff in advance and make a preservation of ownership on the instant building in the future. However, the actual completion date of the instant building is around November 17, 2014, and the Defendant has no effect on November 18, 2014, before the remainder payment date stipulated in the content certification as of November 21, 2014, which is stipulated in the content certification as of November 21, 2014. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of a third party in the instant land and building after the Defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 21, 2014. Since it is difficult to deem that there was any delay in the establishment of a mortgage on the instant land and building, it is inappropriate for the Defendant to prove the cancellation registration to the Plaintiff on November 6, 2014.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant would faithfully implement the instant contract provisions by November 20, 2014,” by means of a mail verifying the content of the contract dated November 10, 2014, and notified the Defendant of the implementation thereof for a considerable period of time, the Defendant failed to perform it within that period, and the instant complaint containing the expression of intent of rescission of the instant contract reached the Defendant on December 17, 2014, is apparent in the record, and thus, the instant contract was lawfully rescinded.
2. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.