beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of the facts of recognition and the party's assertion as to this part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Articles 1 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. The reasons why this court should explain about the cancellation of the instant sales contract are set forth in Article 3 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. The grounds for the court's explanation on this part of the defendant's argument about the scope of the duty to restore to the original state are set forth in Article 3 of the reasoning of the first instance judgment.
B. 1) Since it is identical to the statement in paragraph (1), it is not specified that 10% of the total supply amount subject to forfeiture in the instant sales contract is the amount paid as down payment, inasmuch as it is subject to the deduction of penalty pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (2) However, 10% of the total supply amount subject to forfeiture as penalty in the instant sales contract is equal to the down payment (10%) and the amount.
(2) The instant sales contract includes a loan agreement for an interest-free loan for intermediate payment, and where the sales contract is cancelled, the Plaintiff may refund the principal and interest of the Plaintiff’s loan to the buyer in lieu of the buyer’s financial institution (Article 4(3)), and the settlement between the Plaintiff and the financial institution regarding the principal and interest of the intermediate payment may be achieved. The interpretation that the intermediate payment is confiscated does not comply with the purport of Article 4(3) of the instant sales contract.
C) Therefore, deeming that the price for which penalty is deducted in the instant sales contract refers to the down payment is reasonable interpretation taking into account the possibility of average customer’s understanding. 3) In conclusion, the Defendant’s sales contract of this case from KRW 91,862,513 to the Plaintiff at KRW 91,862,513.