logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.09.05 2017나69595
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Grounds for this Court’s explanation concerning this part of the facts are 1. D. judgment of the first instance court.

This is the same as the "1. Basic Facts" of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following modifications, and this is also accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

D. The Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay all documents for the registration of ownership transfer and the balance by August 10, 2016, as the Defendant did not pay the remainder by the due date for the payment of the remainder under the instant sales contract, with the content certification as of August 1, 2016, but thereafter, notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the instant sales contract due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the remainder upon the Defendant’s failure to pay the remainder, with the content certification as of August 17, 2016.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not pay the remainder under the instant sales contract despite the Plaintiff’s provision of performance and the demand notice for payment of the remainder, and thus, the instant sales contract was rescinded upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent of rescission.

Therefore, since 60,00,000 won of the down payment paid by the Defendant was confiscated to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to return the down payment to the Defendant.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1 and the Defendant stated that the Defendant would build a commercial building according to the current status of the instant real estate when concluding the instant sales contract, and accordingly, stated in the instant sales contract that “if a building permit is not granted, the contract should be invalidated.”

Nevertheless, as part of the instant real estate was incorporated into a road site under B’s road expansion plan, it was impossible to grant the building permit according to the said status, and the application for the building permit that was changed to the point where the wide range of road expansion could not be known was made at any time and could not be seen.

Therefore, the building permit for the instant real estate is virtually impossible, and the sales contract of this case is eventually impossible.

arrow