매매대금반환
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the dismissal of the fifth to T&12 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, the part excluding the determination of claim against C among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(2) As examined in the facts of prior recognition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant sales contract on September 23, 2015. The Nonparty Company concluded a trust agreement with a trust company on March 23, 2012, which had already been transferred, and completed the registration of trust on the E business site. ② The above trust agreement provides that the completed E shall be entrusted to the trust company after preservation registration, and ③ the trust company sold the instant officetel to Nonparty G on October 29, 2012. It is determined that the Plaintiff could not achieve the purpose of the instant sales contract merely by changing the name of the purchaser of the sales contract between the Nonparty Company and the Defendant to the Plaintiff as the purchaser.
Ultimately, the Defendant’s change of the name of the buyer in the sales contract between the Nonparty and the Defendant cannot be deemed as the full performance of the Defendant’s obligation. Since it is impossible for the Defendant to transfer the ownership of the instant officetel to the Plaintiff because the instant officetel had already been transferred to I, the Defendant’s obligation against the Plaintiff under the sales contract of each of the instant case became impossible.
(3) On April 6, 2017, the fact that the duplicate of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel was delivered to the Defendant on the ground of nonperformance is apparent in the record. The Defendant was responsible for concluding the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff without examining the circumstances where the instant officetel’s business site was registered in trust with the trust company. As such, the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded by delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint.
2. Conclusion, the first instance court.