이행보증금반환 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.
2...
1. Of the Plaintiff’s claim, the court of first instance partly accepted the part of the claim for the return of performance guarantee against the Defendant, and dismissed the part of the claim for damages against the Defendant and the co-defendants in the first instance trial.
In this regard, the plaintiff and the defendant appealed against each part against which the claim for the return of performance guarantee is to be made. Therefore, this court's judgment is limited to the claim for the return of performance guarantee against the defendant.
2. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the defendant's "the defendant" in Chapter 6 of the first instance court's decision in Chapter 4 is dismissed as "the defendant and the co-defendants of the first instance court (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the defendant")"; the defendant's "the defendant and the co-defendants of the first instance court" in Chapter 8 are added as follows; the defendant's "the defendant and the second instance court" in Chapter 40 are deleted as follows; the defendant's application for the return of provisional payment is deleted as stated in the reasons for the first instance court's decision; and the defendant's application for the return of provisional payment is added as follows.
3. Additional parts: (7) The seller’s termination of the letter of understanding of this case is lawful on the ground that it is not justified as a matter of course to confiscate the entire performance bond of this case; and (2) the Defendant’s full confiscation of the performance bond of this case is not justified on the sole basis of such circumstance; (3) considering the overall circumstances, such as the content and degree of violation of the obligation of the consortium, the circumstances leading up to the termination of the letter of understanding, as well as the developments leading up to the termination of the contract; and (4) the attitude and intention of the parties at the time of determining the termination of the contract, the economic disadvantage following the failure in the negotiation relation is determined on the responsibility of the modern group consortium; and (4) whether the scope of confiscation and confiscation of the performance bond of this case can be determined and the entire performance bond can be confiscated.