beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2.Nos. 3 to 4 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be as follows:
C. As to the reduction of the estimated amount of damages, the Plaintiff asserted that, even if the instant sales contract was rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of contractual duties, the said contract deposit should be reduced unfairly because it is excessive as the estimated amount of compensation for damages, and that the amount of reduction should be returned to unjust enrichment. 2) If the Defendant clearly expresses his/her intent not to perform the contract, the obligee may rescind the contract or claim damages against the obligor on the ground of the obligor’s non-performance without the notice of performance. Whether the obligor clearly expresses his/her intent not to perform the contract should be determined by comprehensively examining the behavior of the parties to the contract performance and the specific circumstances before and after the contract.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da53173 Decided August 19, 2005). On July 29, 2014, the date of the payment of intermediate payment, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the down payment amount of KRW 100 million already paid, on the ground that it is difficult to perform the obligation to pay according to the instant sales contract, on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to pay the intermediate payment and the remainder payment date. Since the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract by deception of the Defendant, the fact that the duplicate of the instant complaint was delivered to the Defendant on October 21, 2014 is significant in this court.
According to the above facts, the above facts of recognition are examined.