계약금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
A. On November 5, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff purchases KRW 275,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) for the land of 688 square meters and the land of 6 lots, other than the building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
B. The Plaintiff paid 27,500,000 won to the Defendant on the day of the instant sales contract.
C. Article 3 of the instant sales contract provides that “If the seller or the purchaser has failed to perform the terms and conditions of this contract, the other party may demand in writing the other party to the contract and cancel the contract. The other party may claim damages from the rescission of the contract against the other party, respectively. In the event of the buyer’s breach of contract, the buyer’s down payment shall be attributed to the seller without any separate procedure and the seller shall pay the double of the contract amount to the buyer in penalty.”
[Grounds for recognition] In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion without dispute, the access road should be secured in order for the Plaintiff to build a new building on the instant real estate. The Plaintiff thought that the access road was included in the instant real estate and concluded the instant sales contract. The Defendant did not explain such fact to the Plaintiff, even though it was owned by another person, 640 square meters of Donnam Development-gun, Gyeongnam Development-gun, which is the access road to the instant real estate (hereinafter “the access road”), and the Defendant did not address the above problem, even though the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to resolve the access road problem after concluding
Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant to resolve the access road problem, and expressed his/her intent to cancel the contract on May 9, 2019.
The sales contract of this case is due to the defendant's breach of duty of disclosure or default.