매매대금반환
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendants jointly do so to the plaintiff 22,361,600 won and their importance.
1. The reasons why the court should explain in this decision are written in part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and the defendants' decision on the request for the return of provisional payments is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of "paragraph 3" as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
A. Under the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part “as described in the attached Table 1” shall be written by stating “(attached Form 1) as the same as the entry in the price payment method sheet.”
B. Under the third sentence of the first instance judgment, each part of the “instant supply contract” in the first sentence, 6th, 7th sentence, 17th sentence shall be subject to each “instant sales contract” respectively.
(c) Part 4 of the fourth decision of the first instance court "4. 14. 201. 14. 201. 4. 201. 4. 14. . .201. . .. ... .. ..
The fourth 10th 10th 1st 1th 1th 1st 1st 1st 2th 2th 2th 3th 2th 202.
(e) Each portion of the 7th and 12th of the judgment of the first instance court is “legal interest or delay damages” respectively.
F. Part 15 of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance stating that “The penalty pursuant to Article 3(2) of the instant parcelling-out contract” was “the penalty pursuant to Article 16(2) of the instant parcelling-out contract.”
(g) Parts VII through XI of the first instance judgment shall be written in the following manner:
B) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion (1) (A) Summary of the Defendants’ assertion is on November 17, 2017, on the grounds that the Defendants were in delay of the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the seven-time intermediate payment.
Since the sales contract of this case was cancelled through the service of the plaintiff in preparatory documents, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the defendants a penalty of 25,343,700 won equivalent to 10% of the sales price under the sales contract of this case.
Therefore, the amount of claims, such as the down payment of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Defendants.