beta
(영문) 서울고법(인천) 2019.08.14 2019나10727

손해배상(기)

Text

The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is as follows: (a) the sum of KRW 300 million (hereinafter "the down payment of this case") is as follows: (b) the sum of KRW 12 billion (hereinafter "the down payment of this case") is as follows; (c) the agreement for the penalty of this case was completed on the 3rd part (hereinafter "the agreement for the penalty of this case") and the 4th 16th 16th "the second 2th d."; and (d) the 4th 18th d. "D, a lessee" are as follows.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of 1.1, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. In determining the claim for rescission due to the nonperformance of the obligation to deliver real estate, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant left the lessee of the instant building by January 20, 2018, which was the remainder payment date under the instant sales contract, or by February 19, 2018, which was postponed by an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and failed to perform the obligation to deliver each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, including the instant building, to the Plaintiff. As such, the instant sales contract asserted that the Defendant was released from the Defendant’s nonperformance, and sought restitution of the down payment and the payment of the penalty paid

In principle, a seller’s duty to transfer ownership, a duty to deliver ownership, and a buyer’s duty to pay the remainder of the real estate are concurrently performed. In this case, barring any special circumstance, a seller is obligated to complete ownership transfer registration without any restriction or burden (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da12349, Feb. 14, 1992; 2000Da8533, Nov. 28, 2000). He/she returned to the instant case, health stand back, the facts and grounds for recognition as seen earlier, and the following circumstances, i.e., the entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleading: