입찰보증금 반환 청구의 소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
7 At the bottom of the 7th parallel, “A evidence of Nos. 1 through 7, 8 through 12, and Eul evidence of Nos. 6 and 7” are “A, evidence of Nos. 1 through 7, 9 through 12, and evidence of Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7”.
8 Myeon 7-8 P Myeon 7-B “The instant real estate” means “the instant land.”
9 Myeon 10 P Do 10 Preamble “Public Notice” shall be deemed to be “Public Notice of Supply of this case”.
13 The "land of this case" of both the 2nd parallel and 5th parallel at the bottom of the 15th parallel parallel and the 15th parallel parallel shall be raised into "land".
15 The National Land Planning and Utilization Act of 4 Myeon 4 shall be improved to "National Land Planning and Utilization Act".
17 Myeon 6's "The above evidences" are as follows: "The above evidences, Gap evidence No. 14, Eul evidence No. 3 and No. 11, and evidence No. 3 and No. 11."
18.The following shall be added between 18.0 Myeon 8 and 9.
Although the Plaintiff, a company established on June 21, 1989 and engaged in the housing construction business, etc., had a boundary line with the drawing of the instant land, the instant provision alone with the purpose of use and arrangement provisions of the instant building was erroneous that the instant land was adjacent to the riverside park. Although the Plaintiff requested the extension of the schedule for entering into the instant contract on the ground that it is necessary to verify the facts on May 3, 2018, the date of entering into the instant contract, which was the date of entering into the instant contract, was written by the Defendant’s official notice clearly responding to the matters raised by the Plaintiff on the same day, it was not necessary to confirm additional facts or to confirm the Defendant
Even as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s employee stated to the effect that the contract can be concluded if only the down payment was made on May 4, 2018, when the contract date of this case was concluded.
Even if the award becomes null and void, it is unreasonable for the circumstances after the bid bond of this case has already been reverted to the defendant.
2. Conclusion.