계약금반환 등
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this part are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where the witness AG and AB are described in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception of the case where the witness AG and AB are described in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance as “Tho” and the third part “AC apartmentDD Dong” in Item 1 as “N apartmentD Dong”, and the third part as “AC apartmentD Dong” in Part 7 as “AG witness of the first instance trial and AB”, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. Since the subject matter of the instant sales cannot be identified in each floor of the instant building, it cannot be the subject matter of partitioned ownership, the instant sales contract constitutes a case where the objective of the instant sales contract cannot be achieved.
As the Plaintiff expressed his intention to rescind the instant sales contract by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendant, the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 50,000,000,000, which was already paid to the Plaintiff as a result of restitution, and separately pay KRW 50,000,000 as compensation for damages.
B. Since the Defendant’s obligation to deliver and transfer ownership of the subject matter of the instant sales since it was impossible to specify the subject matter of the instant sales, since the Defendant’s obligation to transfer the subject matter of the instant sales and the obligation to transfer ownership are impossible, the instant sales contract is null and void in the original impossibility, and the Defendant shall return the down payment received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
(1) The court below's judgment on March 2, 2020 states that "the plaintiff actively proves that the subject matter of this case is impossible to be specified in the appellate court, and stated in the preparatory document dated March 2, 2020 that "I have been in an impossible condition from the beginning. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to return the down payment of this case to the plaintiff," and therefore, it is deemed that the allegation that the contract of
A. The boundary walls installed between neighboring sections are removed for certain reasons as to whether the instant sales contract is impossible or not. Each of them is a sectioned building.