beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning the principal lawsuit shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal on misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete hearing, and violation of the rules of evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning. The Defendant paid 61,881,390 won to the Plaintiff out of the purchase price stipulated in the instant sales contract, and delayed payment of the remainder. Accordingly, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to cancel the sales contract if the remainder is not paid by July 10, 2013, but the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded due to the Defendant’s failure to perform it. Therefore, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff was liable to deliver the first floor of the instant building to the Plaintiff by its restitution, and subsequently dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the cancellation of a sales contract without exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the grounds of appeal on omission of judgment, if the sales contract of this case was terminated for the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal claim, the Plaintiff also should restore the sales price, etc. received from the Defendant to its original status, and the Defendant asserted that it was a simultaneous performance relationship
Therefore, the lower court, which recognized that the instant sales contract had been rescinded, should have determined whether the Defendant could make a defense of simultaneous performance as to the Plaintiff’s duty to restore due to such rescission.
Nevertheless, the court below did not decide on the above defense of the defendant, and immediately decided that the defendant should deliver the first floor of the building of this case to its original state due to the cancellation of the sales contract of this case.