beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.
2. The appeal costs are the defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment, is as follows: (a) among the judgment of the court of first instance, “the purchaser” as stipulated in subparagraph 8 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be deemed to be “the seller”; and (b) the payment method of the purchase price as stipulated in subparagraph 8 of Article 8 shall be deemed to be “the content and the name of the receipt for KRW 100 million out of the purchase price”; and (c) the part asserted by the Defendant as the reason for appeal and the Plaintiff’s extension claim shall be cited as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance,
2. Additional or supplementary judgment
A. Determination 1 on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s appeal 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s agent’s repayment date from June 27, 2014 to June 30, 2014 were postponed as of June 30, 2014. On June 30, 2014, H participated in all the documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership, including a certificate of seal impression for real estate sale, and provided performance to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not provide performance of the obligation to pay the remainder of the sale price.
Therefore, the Defendant was able to rescind a contract without due process pursuant to Article 12 of the instant sales contract. Since the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded by the Defendant’s notification of cancellation of the sales contract as of July 2, 2014, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request premised on the existence of the instant sales contract.
B) Even if it is recognized that the instant sales contract was not rescinded, the issuance of a receipt is not due to the quid pro quo relationship, but to prevent the risk of double payment, and thus, it cannot be held liable for delay unless the Plaintiff did not provide performance for the remainder of the sales contract. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on the determination of the amount payable is that the Plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay at 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act.