beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from July 7, 2016 to June 23, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase a single-story housing (hereinafter “instant real estate” together with the instant land) with the amount of KRW 245,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 30 million on the date of the contract and the intermediate payment of KRW 5 million on April 4, 2016. The remainder amount of KRW 210,000,000 to be paid on April 28, 2016.
B. At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant stipulated that “6...., documents for deliberation on cultural heritage shall be taken over to the buyer at the remainder of the contract.”
hereinafter referred to as the "matters of the instant special agreement"
(i) [In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The purport of the instant special agreement is that the Plaintiff issued a document (the report on the commencement of excavation investigation under the Cultural Heritage Protection Act) confirming that all administrative issues related to cultural heritage were settled in the construction of a new building on the instant land. The Defendant did not provide the said document to the Plaintiff until the remainder payment is made, and clearly expressed his intention not to provide the said document thereafter. As such, the Plaintiff rescinded the sales contract by serving the complaint in the instant case, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 60 million, an amount equal to the down payment paid by the Plaintiff, and an intermediate payment of KRW 5 million, as an intermediate payment, as an intermediate payment according to the rescission of the sales contract. 2) If it was known that the Plaintiff had not completed the temporary excavation investigation of the instant land at the time of the instant sales contract, and that the cost of drilling was incurred, the instant sales contract was not concluded.
This is an error in the important part of a juristic act, and the plaintiff serves the complaint of this case.