매매대금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.
2. Appeal and.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.
[Attachment] On the third page of the first instance court's decision, the first instance court's "from 4th to 1st f," and the first instance court's "as to 1st f," shall be deemed to be "as to be delivered to the plaintiff."
On the fourth 8th th h th th th th th st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st
According to the fourth decision of the first instance court, "the provisions of Article 5 of the second sales contract" shall be referred to as "the second sales contract amount of KRW 120 million".
2. The defendant, based on the declaration of provisional execution of the judgment of the court of first instance, deposited money with the plaintiff as the principal deposit in this court No. 547. The plaintiff received the seizure and collection order for the above claim for recovery of deposit money of KRW 37,091,738 from the court of first instance by 2015TT15TT1546. Since it is anticipated that the plaintiff's claim acceptance amount will be reduced at the court of first instance, the plaintiff should pay the money exceeding the part of the order for payment in the above 37,091,738 won and the delay damages.
On the other hand, the defendant's application for return of provisional payment is premised on the cancellation of the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance. As seen above, the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is not revoked even in part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus the provisional execution sentence of the court of
Therefore, the defendant's application for the return of provisional payments is without merit, without further review.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal, the defendant's incidental appeal, and the defendant's request for return of provisional payment are dismissed.