계약금 반환
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim
가. 원고와 피고가 2018. 7. 1. 양쪽 공인중개사들의 입회 하에 별지에 나오는 <부동산(토지) 매매계약서(☞ 갑 3, 이하 편의상 그 계약서를 ‘이 사건 계약서’라고 하고, 거기에 담긴 법률행위를 ‘이 사건 계약’이라고 한다)>를 함께 만든 다음, 이 사건 계약에 따라 원고가 그날 피고에게 계약금 중 1억원을 지급한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.
나. 원고는 이 사건 본소청구원인으로 먼저, 이 사건 계약서 중 [특약사항] 제4항(☞ “본 토지에 관련된 행정처분의 미이행으로 인한 개발행위가 안될 시 (이 사건) 계약은 해지하는 것으로 하며, 계약금 등은 돌려주는 것으로 한다.”)에 따라 피고는 원고에게 이미 받은 계약금 1억원을 돌려줄 의무가 있다고 주장한다.
Therefore, it is still insufficient to recognize this point solely on the basis of the respective descriptions of “the time when development activities will not be caused due to the failure of administrative disposition related to this land”, and the witness C and D’s testimony, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s argument that the Plaintiff spawn cannot be accepted.
C. Next, the Plaintiff asserts that there was an error in the important part of the terms and conditions of the instant contract, and that the instant contract was legally invalidated upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the contract, and sought a return of 100 million won of unjust enrichment corresponding to the already paid contract amount against the Defendant.
Therefore, as to whether the contract of this case can be seen as having "misunderstanding on the important part" under Article 109(1) of the Civil Act, part of Gap 4-2, which seems to support this point, is merely a unilateral statement made by the plaintiff.