계약금반환
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
In this case, the court's explanation is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, except for the second instance court's order "2.b. judgment" (from No. 3 to No. 1) among the judgment of the first instance (from No. 14 to No. 4) as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the
Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the defendant's counterclaim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining counterclaim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
【Supplementary part of the Plaintiff’s assertion】 The evidence which seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, among the testimony of the witness E who arranged the Plaintiff’s side and the witness D who arranged the Defendant’s side, the 'private placement in the past E currency' should not be said to be said, us should have included in the special agreement after examination.
It is the part that referred to as "......"
① However, if the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 300 million from a financial institution as collateral is an important condition for the conclusion of the instant sales contract, it should have been stated in the instant sales contract as such condition. However, there should be no such entry and there should be considerable differences in terms of the content of the instant sales contract. ② A financial institution’s loan may be considerably different depending on the value of real estate, the credit rating of the lender, and the scope of the loan. However, if the loan amount was an important condition for the conclusion of the instant sales contract, it is reasonable to have concluded the instant sales contract even though the Plaintiff was directly aware of the loan amount and concluded the instant sales contract, and it is difficult to readily accept that the Defendant’s wife concluded the instant sales contract with the horses of the Defendant