beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is to revise "real estate sales contract" as "real estate sales contract (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case")" as "real estate sales contract (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case"), and the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case."
3. The part of the judgment (No. 10 to No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance) is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the part of judgment (No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 10 to No. 7 of the judgment)
2. In order to establish a contract for a part of an accepted contract, the agreement between the parties is required. The agreement between such parties is not required with respect to all matters constituting the content of the contract in question, but there is a specific agreement with respect to its essential or important matters, or at least the standard and method that can specify them in the future, and it is reasonable to deem that the contract has not been concluded unless there is any special circumstance where there is no agreement with such degree of intent or agreement.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da242867, Oct. 26, 2017). From such perspective, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone, which is an essential and important matter of a sales contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, was in agreement between the parties to a transaction, the purchase price, and the time and method of payment.
It is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement on the standards and methods that could specify them in the future, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiffs of the account number to receive the down payment, and the Plaintiffs did not consent to the previous building without the Defendant’s explicit consent.