회생채권조사확정
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Defendant was the seller of each of the instant sales contracts and each of the instant extended construction contracts.
Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da26256, Dec. 27, 2007), the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.
In conclusion, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of disposal documents or by violating the Supreme Court precedents on the confirmation of parties.
The precedent cited in the ground of appeal is different from the case of this case and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.
2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that each of the instant sales contracts and each of the instant extended construction contracts were lawfully rescinded on January 25, 2010 due to the Defendant’s fault, and that it is difficult for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant to have impliedly rescinded each of the instant sales contracts at the time when the Plaintiffs received the down payment and the intermediate payment from the Korea Housing Guarantee Co.
Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da83240, Mar. 29, 2012), there are parts that are not appropriate for the reasons indicated by the lower court, but the said determination by the lower court is justifiable.
In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the rescission of a bilateral contract and the occurrence of the right to rescind a contract, or by misapprehending the Supreme Court precedents on the implied rescission of a contract, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the distribution of the burden of proof for causes attributable to it.
The precedent cited in the ground of appeal is different from the case of this case and it is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.
3. Conclusion.