(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2021.03.17 2020나29752

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2021.03.17 2020나29752

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

the purport and purpose of the claim;

Reasons

1. The reasons for the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: “The instant contract is a contract under which not only deposit of KRW 50 million but also the first written order (order) is a condition precedent (Articles 3 and 6). Before the fulfillment of the said condition, Article 4 of the instant contract was proved to the Defendant to withdraw the instant contract and return the deposit to the Defendant on the ground that Article 4 of the instant contract was an unfavorable provision to the Plaintiff prior to the fulfillment of the said condition, and the said condition becomes final and conclusive to the effect of the instant contract.

Therefore, the defendant should return 50 million won paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as unjust gains.

“Along with the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant emphasizes or adds to this court is identical to the grounds for the judgment of first instance, and thus, the same shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. As to the argument that the fulfillment of the condition was obstructed, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff who was at a disadvantage due to the fulfillment of the condition interfered with the fulfillment of the condition against the good faith, and thus the condition should be deemed fulfilled. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion

B. 1) As to the offset defense, the defendant clearly expressed his/her intention to refuse performance, and accordingly, the defendant cancelled the contract of this case, so the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the above deposit amount.

However, as seen earlier, as long as the contract of this case does not take effect, the defendant's assertion is without merit without any need to look at the plaintiff's default.

2) The defendant has a duty to compensate for the defendant's damages since the plaintiff unfairly reversed the negotiation of the contract.

However, the plaintiff unfairly reversed the negotiation of contract.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.10.29 2015나2027192

-울산지방법원 2020.02.04 2018가단20056

-서울고등법원 2017.03.30 2016나2074430

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.02.07 2017가단59416

-대구지방법원 2017.11.22 2017나310201