손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant requested D, a licensed real estate agent, to sell the instant apartment around September 2016, as the owner of Ulsan-gu C apartment 201 Dong 403 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. On September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed to D the intent to purchase the instant apartment, and transferred KRW 7,000,000 as the “contract advance” to the bank account under the name of the Defendant on September 27, 2016, the following day.
C. Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to set the sales price of the instant apartment via D as KRW 398,50,000, and the down payment as KRW 40,000,000, and to prepare a periodical contract on October 25, 2016, which was agreed to prepare a periodical contract. On October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 33,00,000,000, excluding the down payment paid as a contract deposit, out of KRW 40,000,000, which was paid as a check.
On October 24, 2016, the Defendant requested D to postpone the preparation of the contract on November 3, 2016, which was signed and sealed before the date of the preparation of the above formal contract, and then returned the contract advance by remitting KRW 7,000,000 to the bank account under the Plaintiff’s name on October 25, 2016, which is the next day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant established the instant apartment as the subject matter of sale and the sales price of KRW 398,500,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Defendant voluntarily returned the amount of KRW 7,00,000 received from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff and expressed its intent to refuse to perform its obligations.
Therefore, since the sales contract of this case was cancelled due to the defendant's rejection of performance, the defendant is liable for compensation for damages suffered by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff believed that the sales contract of this case will be implemented, and sold the sales right held by the plaintiff, and in the apartment of this case.