현금청산자지위확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the 3rd court's ruling "10.39%" shall be used as "10.39%"; the 13 second court's "Article 44", "Article 45" and "Article 45" shall be used as "Article 44", and the 6th court's "Article 15" shall be used as "Article 44" under Article 13 of the 13th court's ruling and the 420th court's "Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act" shall be the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first court, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion as set forth in paragraph 2 below. Thus, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the
2. Additional matters to be determined
A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a sales contract, the proportional ratio fell from 90.11% to 77.82%.
On January 22, 2015, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant sales contract by serving a duplicate of the statement of grounds for appeal as of January 22, 2015.
Therefore, since the Plaintiff did not enter into a contract for sale, the Plaintiff is in the position of cash clearing agent from June 25, 2012 (the same time as the first preliminary claim), which is the day following the end of the initial contract for sale, and the management and disposition plan of this case, which designates the Plaintiff as the object of sale, should be revoked as it is unlawful.
B. (1) The cancellation of a contract due to changes in circumstances refers to an exception to the principle of contract observance in cases where a significant change in circumstances occurs in which the parties could not have foreseen at the time of contract formation, and such change in circumstances arose for reasons for which the party who acquired the right of rescission is not responsible for the party who acquired the right of rescission. If the binding force is recognized according to the contract contents, it shall be recognized as an exception to the principle of contract observance in cases where the result is substantially contrary
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da31302, Mar. 29, 2007). We examine the instant case.