beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 31,819,137 and the said amount.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the following portions of the judgment of the court of first instance are corrected; and (b) the part “B.” between the six pages 11 through 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance is written as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part “b.” in the judgment of the court of first instance is written as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance
No. 3 d.
The respective “F” in the 2nd, 6th, 4, 7, and 8th, shall be corrected to “G”. Each “Defendant” in the 4th, 21th, 5th, and 2nd, shall be corrected to “Defendants”. In the 5th and 8th, “The Defendant shall, after the payment of the advance, correct “the payment that the Plaintiff made after the payment of the advance” to “the Defendant,” “the payment that the Defendant made after the payment of the advance,” and “the Defendant,” in the 6th, 8th part of the payment of the advance.
B. In principle, in a case where damages are claimed as well as cancellation of a contract on the ground of non-performance of relevant legal principles, the obligee is entitled to seek damages from the obligee as a result of the performance of the contract. However, the obligee may seek damages from the obligee’s belief that the contract would have been fulfilled in lieu of the claim. Of the trust interests, the expenses normally incurred in the conclusion and performance of the contract may be claimed regardless of whether the other party knew or could have known as ordinary damages, and the excess expenses may be claimed only if the other party knew or could have known of them as damages due to special circumstances. However, the trust interest shall not exceed the scope of the performance interest in light of the principle of prohibition of excessive damages.
(대법원 2002. 6. 11. 선고 2002다2539 판결 참조). ⑵ 손해액의 계산 ㈎ 위 법리에 비추어 보면, 피고들은 연대하여 원고에게 원고가 이 사건 계약의 이행을 위하여 지출한...