손해배상(기)
1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 41,868,016 and KRW 27,912,00 among them, the Defendant shall start from October 4, 2018 to March 26, 2019.
1. On October 3, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant who newly built and sold “D” officetels in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, etc. (hereinafter “instant officetel”) to purchase the said officetel No. 3 E in KRW 139,560,166, and paid the down payment amount of KRW 27,912,00 on the day, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the remainder KRW 111,648,166 on the date of designation of occupancy.
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On April 8, 2019, the Defendant obtained approval for the use of the instant officetel, and notified the buyer of the designation date from May 27, 2019 to June 27, 2019.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the assertion and issues
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract was rescinded by the Plaintiff’s notification of cancellation by the service of the original copy of the instant payment order, on the grounds that the Defendant had not obtained approval for the instant officetel from December 2018, which was the date of the completion of the agreement, and that the instant sales contract was rescinded by the service of the original copy of the instant payment order, and sought reimbursement of KRW 13,956,016,016, which was paid by the Defendant.
As to this, the defendant asserts the following reasons.
① At the time of concluding the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not have agreed on the date of completion of the instant officetel.
② On January 21, 2019, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to complete the instant officetel by January 31, 2019.
The plaintiff's peremptory notice of performance is too short of 10 days, and thus, the plaintiff did not have the right of rescission.
③ Since the Defendant’s duty of completion and the Plaintiff’s duty of the remainder payment of the instant building are concurrently performed, the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination of the instant contract is null and void without providing the said duty of the remainder payment.
B. Determination as to the issues of this case 1.