beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the case where the defendant makes an additional determination as to the assertion added to the grounds of appeal by the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s act of notifying the Plaintiff of the Defendant’s account number despite having been aware of the Defendant’s intention of rescission constitutes breach of trust, violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, and the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, and that the Plaintiff actively requested the Plaintiff with the knowledge of the Defendant’s intention of rescission. As such, the Plaintiff’s repayment of the Plaintiff’s intermediate payment is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order, or null and void in violation of the good faith and good faith principle, and thus, the Plaintiff’s provision of a double payment of contract deposit and the delivery
In principle, as long as a contract has been concluded, a party to the contract may claim the other party to perform the contractual obligation, barring special circumstances such as where either party actively interferes with the other party’s legitimate exercise of right to rescission by unlawful means, it cannot be deemed an act contrary to good morals and other social order or an act contrary to good faith and good faith.
According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 10-2 and Eul's testimony, the defendant added KRW 7,50,000 to KRW 7,000,000,000, which was paid as the down payment of the instant sales contract, to the office of licensed real estate agents C after a week from the date of the said contract, and it can be acknowledged that the defendant called the plaintiff on September 21, 2015 and expressed his/her intent to cancel the contract.
However, according to the above evidence, if the defendant voluntarily cancelled the contract from the plaintiff on September 21, 2015, which was before the time when the intermediate payment was due, the amount of the down payment will be double.