매매대금반환
1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s respective claims against the Defendants added in the trial.
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the reasoning for the court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the court's decision of the first instance (the defendant's part) in addition to the dismissal of some of the court's decision of the first instance or addition of the court's decision as follows, it shall be cited as it is by the main text of Article 420
Part 4 said that the 5th head of the 5th head of the Sil-Seng Construction is the “Sae-Sae-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa
Part 4, the remaining amount of KRW 703,293,390 shall be considered as “the remaining amount of KRW 2,703,293,390” of Part 11.
2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part which the court determines additionally cannot be seen as “no..........................”
C. The Plaintiff’s judgment on each of the claims added in the first instance trial was the first instance trial, and ① the Defendants concluded a new sales contract with the same purpose as that of the instant sales contract, and thus, the instant sales contract became null and void due to the impossibility of achieving the purpose of the instant sales contract, and ② even if not, it.
Even if the Defendants entered into a sales contract with Sung F&D with the same purpose and content as the instant sales contract, it is identical to the rescission of the instant sales contract that was concluded with Sung F&D. Therefore, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff should return to the Plaintiff the intermediate payment, such as the purport of the appeal, due to restitution following the invalidation or cancellation of the instant sales contract.
However, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants entered into a sales contract that is identical with or similar to the instant sales contract, and even if a sales contract was entered into between the Defendants, it is based on the outcome that the Defendant and the Defendant transferred the status of the instant sales contract against the Defendants as seen earlier, so the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.