계약금반환 등 청구의 소
1. Upon the claim that the court changed the exchange in this court, the defendant 13,100,910 won and this shall apply to the plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the instant case, is added or dismissed as follows, and the Defendant additionally determined as to the assertion that is emphasized by this court as the grounds for appeal by this court. The Plaintiff’s claim for exchange change in this court is identical to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as otherwise determined in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and such claim is cited as it is in accordance
In addition or appeal, two pages 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance are added to the "sale contract of this case" after the "sale contract of this case" (hereinafter "sale contract of this case").
In the judgment of the court of first instance, the 2nd to 15th of the same 13th of the same 15th of the same 2th of the same 15th of the same 2th of the same 3th of the first instance, “The scheduled date of occupancy under the instant sales contract was around March 2018, and the Defendant reported the scheduled date of commencement to March 16, 2016, but the new construction was not completed by the closing date of argument in the instant case and the scheduled date of occupancy was changed by December 20
On the second half of the judgment of the first instance, the defendant added "other than force majeure reasons, such as administrative orders not related to natural disasters or the defendant's causes attributable to him" in front of "the defendant."
In the second instance judgment of the first instance court, the following acts of the 17th instance court added "(based on recognition): the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4, 8, 9, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings."
In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part from the 19th to 3th 3th 3th 3th 2017, “the Defendant failed to complete the new construction work as of the date on which three months or more elapsed from the scheduled date of occupancy specified in the instant sales contract, and it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant has the responsibility to delay occupancy due to the issue in the course of the new construction work, as it belongs to the Defendant’s territory, which is the operator of the instant new hotel construction and sales business, barring any special circumstance. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to cancel the instant sales contract on such ground is against the Defendant on September 18, 2018.