beta
Text
The part concerning the claim for penalty (26,000,000 won and damages for delay) in the judgment of the court of first instance is below.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The grounds for this part of this Court are the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment.
(2) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall submit a written contract under the agreement between the parties to the transaction and prepare a sales contract based on the actual transaction price.” The Plaintiff’s refusal to pay the remainder on the ground that the actual transaction price is demanded to prepare a written contract and the Defendant refuses to pay the remainder, and thus, constitutes a non-performance refusal clearly indicating in advance the intention not to perform his/her obligation,” on the ground that the Defendant’s assertion is based on this part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the following:
(2) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides for the following reasons: (a) In the case of cancelling a contract due to the so-called “non-performance” as to the cancellation of the contract of this case, the requirements for cancelling a contract are very mitigated when compared with the cancellation of the contract at the time of delay of performance (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da9463, Sept. 14, 1992). Thus, in cases where the intention of refusal of performance is explicitly expressed, the intention of refusal of performance shall be clearly and ultimately expressed in full view of all the circumstances after the time of the contract or after the contract, except in cases where the intention of refusal of performance is explicitly expressed.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da22971 Decided November 9, 2006). In full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to prepare a contract based on the actual transaction price, and the circumstance that the contract was one of the meters that the contract was not concluded normally is recognized.
However, this is an issue that has been raised due to transfer income tax.