부당이득금반환 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance is the same as the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the part added or used after adding below, and thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The plaintiff asserts that the part added or used in the trial is not a penalty agreement for breach of contract, the plaintiff asserts that if the sales contract of this case is cancelled due to the non-party company's default of payment of the balance, the sum of the contract deposit (2.5 million won and the proceeds of sale 2.55 billion won) and the contract deposit (2.55 billion won) will belong to the defendant who is the seller, the seller, shall be presumed to belong to the defendant. Article 6 (6) of the sales contract of this case is presumed to be an estimate for damages, not a penalty agreement, and therefore, it shall be reduced by Article 398 (2) of the Civil
In light of the fact that the term of penalty is used in the sale contract of this case, it cannot be readily concluded as a penalty agreement just because it uses the term of penalty in this case.
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the parties to a contract may be deemed to have recognized the existence of declaration of intent and the content of a contract in accordance with the language and text, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da14115, Jun. 26, 2014) where the content of a contract is written in writing between the parties to the contract, which is a disposal document, and where the objective meaning of the language and text is clear (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9034, Jul. 9, 2009).