The case holding that where a bill or promissory note was delivered for the payment of both the down payment and the remainder, and the agreement was reached that “if the payment is not made on the foot of the Promissory Notes, the amount paid shall not be returned,” it is an estimate of the amount of damages applied even if the obligation to pay the balance is not fulfilled

The case holding that the above provision is applicable not only to the case where the buyer delivers a bill, etc. to the seller for the payment of the remainder, but also to the case where the buyer fails to pay the balance on the date of payment of the balance, in case where the buyer delivers the bill, etc. to the seller for the payment of the balance, and the check or the bill is delivered for the payment of the balance. In case where the buyer does not pay the balance on the date of payment of the balance, and in case where the buyer does not pay the balance on the date of payment of the balance.

Article 398 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant Lee Byung-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na21126 delivered on April 26, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence, found that the plaintiff purchased the charging period from the defendant as 120,000,000 won in cash, and delivered 6,000,000 won per unit price per contract deposit, and 9,000,000 won for the remaining remainder (which seems to be a clerical error in the judgment below) and 15,000,000 won for the payment of 47,000 won per face value per bill and 20,000 won per bill, but the remaining 60,000,000 won for the remainder and 70,000 won are delivered to the defendant as well as 9,000 won for the payment of the remainder and 9,000 won for the remaining remainder and 7,000 won for the payment of the 97,000,000 won for the remaining remainder and 9,000,000 won for each of the above 9,07,0,0,000.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)