beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. The purport of the claim is.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff sought a judgment in the first instance court as stated in the purport of the claim, but the first instance court dismissed all the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims.
However, the plaintiff appealed only to the part against the plaintiff as to the conjunctive claim among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the scope of this court's trial is limited to the conjunctive claim, which is the part
2. The reasoning for this is that the court’s reasoning is the same as that of the first instance judgment, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Judgment on the conjunctive cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the contract of this case was rescinded by implied agreement between the parties. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30 million, which was already paid to the Plaintiff due to the cancellation of the contract, and damages for delay.
B. The facts of recognition 1 revealed that: (a) the Plaintiff demanded that “the intermediate payment be directly transferred to the creditor D; and (b) the auction is withdrawn by agreement between the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D” or “the remainder without intermediate payment shall be paid immediately after setting the date of the agreement on the remainder; (c) the withdrawal of the auction and the cancellation of the right to collateral security shall be simultaneously performed; and (d) the Defendant cannot pay the intermediate payment if it is not accepted by the Defendant.”
② On December 29, 2015, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay intermediate payments and sent mobile phone text messages containing the intent to cancel the contract where the intermediate payment is not paid by the due date. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not pay the intermediate payment to the Defendant by December 13, 2015, which is the date of the contract for intermediate payment, or by December 29, 2015, which is understood by the Defendant.
③ On January 19, 2016, the Defendant revoked the instant sales contract due to the delay or refusal of the Plaintiff’s intermediate payment.