토지매매계약금 및 중도금의 반환 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.
2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for modification of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance
(1) The court of first instance’s findings and determination are justifiable in view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance as well as the descriptions or images of evidence Nos. 7 through 9 and Nos. 30 through 34, and there are no errors as alleged by the plaintiff as the grounds for appeal or by the defendant as the grounds for incidental appeal). The “each description” of No. 39 of the first instance judgment as “each description” of No. 9 shall be amended to “each description (the Plaintiff alleged that this part of the photograph or photograph file character was manipulatedd as Oct. 10, 2017 even after October 10, 2017, while the description or image of evidence No. 8 and 9 were insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it).”
3 pages 13 of the judgment of the first instance court, “ until October 9, 2017, extended by the Plaintiff’s highest notice,” which read “ until October 13, 2017, which was extended by the Plaintiff’s highest notice,” shall be amended to read “ until October 13, 2017, which is the remainder payment date.”
5 pages 1 to 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended as follows.
[Plaintiff’s assertion that the remaining payment date was extended to 13:00 on October 10, 2017, and that the instant vinyl was agreed to remove by 13:00 on the same day, not until October 10, 2017, but until 24:00 on the same day. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was such an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant solely on the basis of the entries in the evidence Nos. 2 through 7 and No. 1, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
3) As follows, the first instance judgment’s 7 pages 7 of the 197th instance judgment is amended as follows.
It does not seem that the interest for the remainder that the Defendant asserts is about 19.2 million won, and the cost of removing the plastic houses is about 4.1 million won, the cost of re-establishment of groundwater is about 1.5 million won and the cost of land clearing.