logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.13 2019나48785
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages due to the cancellation of a sales contract for the primary impossibility of performance with the Defendant, and the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim and partly accepted the conjunctive claim.

As the defendant appealed, the object of the trial at the trial at the time is limited to the preliminary claim partially quoted as above.

2. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '3. Additional Judgment' to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds in the trial of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Additional determination

A. The Defendant asserts that: (a) on November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff waived down down payment by notifying the rescission of the instant sales contract on November 11, 2015; and (b) at the same time, the Plaintiff clearly expressed his intention of refusal of performance and finally expressed his intention of refusal; (c) accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rescission of the instant sales contract without providing any consideration on November 16, 201 and the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded; and (d) the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to return the down payment to the Plaintiff. (b) First, whether the Plaintiff renounced down the down payment with the notification of cancellation of the instant sales contract; and (b) the instant sales contract constitutes an agreement to give the Plaintiff the right to waive the down payment and the right to rescind the said contract, solely on the grounds that

However, as of November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff’s notice of cancellation of the instant sales contract is merely an expression of intent for cancellation due to the Defendant’s nonperformance, and is not an expression of intent for cancellation by waiver of the down payment stipulated in Article 6 of the instant sales contract. Thus, the said notice is merely a notification of cancellation of the instant

arrow