계약금반환 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 200,000,000, premium amounting to KRW 350,000,000, premium amounting to KRW 350,000, premium amounting to KRW 5,000, monthly renting to KRW 10,000,000 with respect to the building of the first and fifth floors under the C convalescent hospital “C convalescent hospital”, and entered into a contract with the Defendant to operate the hospital by accepting the whole physical facilities and human facilities of the C convalescent hospital.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on March 20, 2013, and KRW 150,000 in the intermediate payment on March 26, 201, but the Defendant refused to receive the remainder and did not perform the contractual obligation.
The plaintiff cancelled the above lease contract and operation contract by the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and claim for the lease deposit and premium of 250,000,000 won paid to the defendant, and 100,000,000 won, which are damages equivalent to the down payment, and damages for delay, respectively.
2. Determination
A. In order to establish the relevant legal principles, in order to ensure that there is a need for the objective agreement between the parties to agree with each other and objective agreement, all the matters expressed in the parties’ declaration of intent should be the same. On the other hand, even if the contents of a contract are not "important" and the objective elements of a contract, when the parties expressed their intent to be the requirements for the formation of a contract with significant significance thereto, the contract is lawful and effective only when there is an agreement with regard thereto.
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53059 delivered on April 11, 2003).
Judgment
In full view of the facts and circumstances admitted in the future, it is difficult to believe that part of the evidence No. 1 and the witness E, which seem to conform to the Plaintiff’s assertion that a lease contract and an operating contract for “C convalescent hospital” was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and some testimony of the witness E, respectively, and evidence No. 3 and No. 4.