선수보증금 등
1. The defendant's appeal and the claim for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.
2. The cost of filing an application for the return of provisional payments shall be included.
1. The corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act of basic facts;
2. The parties' assertion
A. On December 31, 2009, the Defendant asserted the Plaintiff’s assertion that the time of land use was set as the time of December 31, 2009 and concluded the instant player agreement, but rejected the conclusion of the agreement with the time of land use as the time of land use as of June 30, 2010.
This constitutes a refusal of the implementation of the instant player agreement by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, on March 22, 2010, lawfully rescinded the instant player agreement.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 13,451,875,000 won paid by the plaintiff as a player deposit and damages for delay thereof, and as a penalty, the defendant is obligated to pay 13,451,875,000 won and damages for delay, which are equivalent to the player deposit, by applying mutatis mutandis or applying mutatis mutandis Article 10(5) of the Hague Convention.
B. The Defendant’s assertion 1 is characterized as a pre-sale agreement, and it is not a binding contract itself, and the timing of land use at the time of the instant supply announcement is sufficiently publicly notified, taking into account the characteristics of the player agreement with strong characteristic, that the timing of land use may change according to the progress of the construction of the land for public housing, and even the instant player agreement, determined and notified the Plaintiff by taking into account the progress of the instant development project and the approval of the implementation plan. In addition, the time of conclusion of this agreement is not required to conclude this contract according to the timing of land use under the instant player agreement. Moreover, the time of land use under the instant player agreement is not specified as of December 31, 2009, but not “after December 31, 2009,” and the Plaintiff can immediately use the land subject to the instant supply for a long-term delay of three times and four times advance payments at the time.