If the other party refuses to receive the down payment when the contract is terminated after repaying the double amount of the down payment (negative)

In case where the parties to the transaction receive the down payment and reserve the right to cancel the contract, in order for the seller to refund the double amount of the down payment and cancel the contract, it is sufficient to provide a double amount of the down payment in addition to the declaration of the contract cancellation, and it is not necessary for the other party to deposit it.

Article 565 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da699,700 delivered on June 21, 1966, 66Da736 delivered on July 5, 1966, 78Da1468 delivered on September 26, 1978, 79Da1663 delivered on November 27, 1979

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant’s Attorney Lee Jae-sung

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na72 delivered on October 13, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

In case where the parties to the sale and purchase receive the down payment and reserved the right to cancel the contract, it is sufficient for the person who received the down payment to pay the down payment and cancel the contract in addition to the declaration of intent to cancel the contract, and even if the other party does not receive it, it is not necessary to deposit it, and the original case (Supreme Court Decisions 4283Da73 delivered on July 3, 1951, 66Da69,700 delivered on June 21, 196, 66Da736 delivered on July 5, 196, 78Da1468 delivered on September 26, 1978). Further, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or to oppose the previous decision of the Supreme Court.

2. With respect to the second and third points:

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff notified the non-party 1, an individual of the sales contract, to receive the contract deposit by telephone, and the non-party 2, who is the defendant's representative, at the office of the plaintiff even on the 30th day of the 1978-day payment date, the plaintiff's above act is merely a preparatory act for performance and it cannot be viewed that the act itself starts with the execution act. The court below's judgment and judgment are justified in light of the evidence relation at the time of the judgment below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the provision for performance and the commencement of performance of obligation, and even if the records were prepared, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's act was not a legitimate confession of the contract deposit and the plaintiff's intent to withdraw the contract deposit, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's act was not a counter-party 2, who is the defendant's representative of the defendant's office.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)