본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.10.18 2018나35633

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal



1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for an apartment in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with a purchase price of KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “instant contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 70 million.

B. The terms and conditions of the instant contract include the purport that “the Defendant shall register the two compulsory decision to commence compulsory sale of the instant apartment by October 31, 2016, and cancel all one of the registrations of seizure and provisional seizure.” Meanwhile, Article 6 of the instant contract provides that “if a seller or purchaser fails to fulfill the terms and conditions of the instant contract, the other party may notify in writing the defaulted person and rescind the relevant contract. In addition, the contractual party may claim damages arising from the cancellation of the contract, respectively, against the other party, and the contract shall be based on the compensation for damages for down payment, unless otherwise agreed.”

C. On October 31, 2016, the Defendant failed to cancel each registration of the instant apartment in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the instant contract.

On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to implement the contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant contract by November 15, 2016, and notifies the Defendant that the contract will be rescinded if the contract is not fulfilled.

“The content-certified mail” sent to the Defendant at that time, and the content-certified mail sent to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts seen earlier prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendant did not perform its duty under the terms and conditions of the instant contract, and the Plaintiff may rescind the instant contract.

As such, the instant contract is lawfully made according to the Plaintiff’s declaration of contractual termination around November 16, 2016, after the deadline for the Plaintiff’s peremptory notice of performance.