beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal on the grounds of revocation of a contract, the court shall determine whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of social justice and the principle of equity by free conviction, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings and the result of examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The fact duly confirmed by the court of final appeal that the judgment below did not go beyond
(Article 432 of the same Act). On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant, by dividing the instant land into the Plaintiff and transferring the registration of ownership transfer of the divided land pursuant to each of the instant sales contracts, clearly determined that the Defendant had no intent to perform the said obligations on the date for pleading in the lower
The part of the ground of appeal disputing the lower court’s fact-finding is merely an error in the selection of evidence and the determination of the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court.
In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding refusal of performance, which is the grounds for revocation of contract, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the ground of appeal on the effect of rescission of contract and delay damages
A. Article 548(2) of the Civil Act provides that the interest shall be added to the money that is returned upon the rescission of the contract with the performance of the duty to restore. However, the repayment of the above interest falls under the scope of the duty to restore, and it has the nature of the return of unjust enrichment, and damages arising from the delay in the performance of the duty to restore.