beta
Text
1. Of the part regarding the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, 24,631.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is about "2. Judgment on the merits" of the judgment of the court of first instance.
B. In addition to the following cases, the part of “reparing to the original state and compensating for damages” (Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit, the removal of the instant facilities, and the transfer of the instant land among the Defendant’s counterclaims, and dismissed the claim for monetary payment. Accordingly, inasmuch as only the Defendant appealed against the principal lawsuit and the claim for monetary payment among the counterclaims, the part concerning the removal of the instant facilities and the claim for land delivery among the Defendant’s counterclaims is excluded from the scope of this court’s judgment, even though it had already been delivered the instant land on March 30, 2018, and there is no dispute over the fact that the instant facilities have been removed, the part that was used on February 2, 2018 shall not be judged again as to the instant counterclaims).
A. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the instant contract was cancelled, and the Defendant is obligated to return the down payment of KRW 10 million paid by the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
B. The Defendant, who completed the instant building and delivered it to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant contract, failed to perform it properly. Since the Plaintiff rescinded the instant contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred therefrom.
Therefore, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff: (a) carried out the installation work of the instant tea facility at his own expense for the purpose of operating the Sejong Deputy Commissioner in the instant land; (b) the instant contract was rescinded and thus making it impossible to use the said facility at all; and (c) thereby, incurred damages equivalent to the said facility cost, and thus, (d) the Defendant did so to the Plaintiff.