(영문) 대법원 2015.10.15 2015다33755 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대법원 2015.10.15 2015다33755

매매대금

Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant’s payment of intermediate payment and balance may be refused against the Plaintiff until the Defendant receives it from the Plaintiff, since the obligation owed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant is larger than KRW 70 million in total.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the contract of this case, prepared by the plaintiff and the defendant, "if "A" did not perform the obligation under Article 7 (Liability for Damages Caused by Violation of Mutual Agreement)", "A (the defendant refers to the defendant) compensates for the amount of the down payment received from "A (the plaintiff)" and if "B" did not perform the obligation, this contract becomes null and void and belongs to "A" (the contract of this case shall not be terminated under mutual agreement)" (hereinafter "the contract of this case"). Accordingly, the court below determined that if the plaintiff and the defendant fail to perform the obligation under the above contract of this case, it can be recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the damages amounting to 30 million won, which is 10 billion won of the down payment already paid to the plaintiff, shall be deemed as the scheduled amount of damages.

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

1 Where the content of a contract is prepared in writing between the parties to the contract, which is a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the expression of intent shall be recognized, unless there are special circumstances, but the objective meaning of the text shall be clearly clarified.

유사 판례

-대법원 2015.10.15.선고 2015다33755 판결

-대법원 2016.05.26 2014다223520

-대법원 2022. 3. 31. 선고 2020다245408 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.19 2015가단48403

-인천지방법원 부천지원 김포시법원 2018.12.12 2018가단2169