beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part added as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The following shall be added between the third and 12 of the judgment of the first instance.
On October 19, 2015, the Defendants sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that “The instant sales contract is cancelled on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal of performance, and the Plaintiff will confiscate the down payment of KRW 10 million paid by the Plaintiff as penalty for breach of contract.” On October 19, 2015, the following is added to the first instance court’s decision No. 5, 3.
“On the other hand, when one of the parties expressed his/her intention not to perform his/her obligation in a bilateral contract, the other party may rescind the contract without demanding performance or providing his/her own obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da49053, Nov. 24, 2000). The following circumstances revealed in light of the facts acknowledged as above and the overall purport of the pleading, i.e., the purport that the Plaintiff would not maintain the sales contract of this case by rejecting the payment of the remainder to the Defendants and claiming the return of the down payment. ② The Defendants sent proof of contents as of Oct. 19, 2015 that the contract of this case would not be terminated on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to perform the obligation, and further, on Nov. 30, 2015, the preparatory documents indicate that the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to perform the obligation, and on the other hand, on December 28, 2015, the preparatory documents reached the Plaintiff around 19, etc.
As such, the sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded.