beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the plaintiffs' claims added by this court are all dismissed.
2. Appeal costs and interest.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in the trial is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion. The court of first instance rejected additional statements and images of evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 10, and witness E which lack to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion. The plaintiffs' additional claims made in the trial of the court of first instance are identical to the part of the judgment of the first instance, except for addition of the judgment under Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Determination on additional claims
A. On December 1, 2009, the Plaintiffs asserted that they concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to sell a price of KRW 75,000,000 to the Defendant for KRW 83 square meters in Ansan-si owned by the Defendant and the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant contract”).
The Defendant did not pay any balance of KRW 23,000,000, which was agreed to pay on February 10, 2010 under the instant contract, and the instant contract was rescinded on October 26, 2015.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the statutory interest amounting to KRW 6,325,00,000, which is equivalent to the statutory interest rate of KRW 5% per annum from February 10, 2010 to October 26, 2015 under the Civil Act, as damages for nonperformance.
B. A person who intends to rescind a contract on the ground of the other party’s non-performance in a bilateral contract with a simultaneous performance relationship shall provide the other party with the performance of his/her own obligation in the simultaneous performance relationship, and if the other party’s act is necessary in the performance of his/her obligation, he/she shall complete the preparation to perform at any time, notify the other party of his/her intention to receive it, and make the other party enter it into the delay of performance, but he/she shall be given the other party a peremptory notice of receipt, and the preparation for performance shall not be sufficient simply by having the preparation for performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da3053, 3060, Apr. 24, 2008).