beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.04.21 2014가단18949

계약금반환 등

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 20, 2014 to April 21, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 260,000,000 on the purchase price of KRW 260,000,00 from Jeju-si, Jeju-si, the ownership of which is KRW 811 square meters, and KRW 1,655 square meters, and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 26,00,000 to the Defendant as down payment on August 26, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff paid only KRW 10,000,000 among the remainder on August 26, 2014, and failed to pay the remainder. On September 17, 2014, the Defendant, along with documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, such as a certificate of personal seal impression for sale, issued to the Plaintiff on September 17, 2014, with the notice to demand that the Plaintiff perform the obligation to pay the remainder until September 19, 2014, and presented a certificate of content that the instant sales contract would

C. On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff intended to maintain the instant sales contract by additionally paying KRW 100 million, which is a part of the remainder. However, the Defendant deposited KRW 11 billion in total with Jeju District Court Decision 201Da1351, supra.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The instant sales contract was rescinded in accordance with the notification of the Defendant’s rescission of the contract made on September 17, 2014 by the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Defendant, as its restitution, shall return the down payment of KRW 26 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion was cancelled due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff who failed to pay the remainder by the deadline for the payment of the remainder, and the Defendant may confiscate the said down payment amount of KRW 26 million. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine promises to pay a penalty to the obligee in the event of nonperformance.