beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s revocation part shall be the Defendants.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is the same as that of the relevant part of the first instance judgment (Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, this part of the reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The grounds for this part of the parties’ assertion are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, this part of the grounds for appeal are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Determination
A. The part of the claim for return of KRW 500 million paid by E is established between E and the Defendants, and this part of the claim is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 17 to 10 pages 6). Thus, this part of the claim is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(2) Whether the contract of this case is rescinded (unlawful) or not may be rescinded by the implied agreement between the parties as well as the explicit rescission of the contract. However, in order to recognize the implied termination of the contract, it is insufficient to deem that both parties to a sales contract was concluded and a part of the contract was paid by failing to pay the remainder over a long period of time or failing to perform the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership, thereby leaving the contract neglected. It can be said that both parties to the contract did not intend to realize the contract or to have the intent to waive the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da12682, 12699, Jun. 25, 1996). If the contract is partially performed, the intent to reinstate shall also be the same.
(B) Whether an implied agreement was rescinded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da98412, 98429, Apr. 28, 2011). (b) Whether E entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendants and remitted KRW 500 million to Defendant D’s account on February 28, 2007, and did not proceed to the payment of the remainder.
3.2