logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.26 2015나2040225
계약금
Text

The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows. The court's explanation on this case is as follows: "No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance" "No. 000,000,000 won"; and except to supplement or add the judgment as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance; thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The Plaintiff agreed in the instant contract Nos. 1 and 2 that “the payment of the remainder shall be made within two weeks after the building permit was granted,” or that “the date of payment of the remainder shall be made under mutual agreement after obtaining the final authorization and permission.” Thus, the instant contract Nos. 1 and 2 constitutes a contract under which the conditions of suspension are to obtain authorization and permission for the construction of a factory with respect to the instant forest and field. As such, the Defendants asserted that the instant contract should return the down payment to the Plaintiff.

In light of the foregoing, in cases where it is reasonable to view that, in a juristic act to which a vice officer attached, if the fact indicated in the vice officer does not occur, the non-performance of the obligation should be deemed as a condition, and in cases where it is reasonable to regard that the non-performance of the obligation should be made even if the facts indicated have occurred and the non-performance of the obligation becomes definite, it shall be deemed that the existence

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da24215 Decided August 19, 2003; 2010Da89036 Decided April 28, 201, etc.). The Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded in the instant contract that “payment of the payment of the payment of the payment shall be made within two weeks after the building permit was granted” or “payment shall be made under mutual agreement after the final authorization and permission was obtained.” The same is as recognized by the first instance judgment cited by the court of this case, but such facts and part of Q of the first instance witness.

arrow