beta
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. The parties' assertion
A. On July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase at least 100 million won for the said KRW 50 million and paid the down payment KRW 10 million on the day of the contract. On July 19, 2015, the Plaintiff confirmed on July 19, 2015, which was the day immediately before the date of the payment of the intermediate payment, and did not have 10,000 number, and the Plaintiff’s rescission of the contract is mixed with the termination and rescission. According to the purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff appears to have asserted the cancellation due to nonperformance. According to the purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not immediately refund the down payment amount of KRW 10,000,000,000 to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 10 million and delay damages.
B. The plaintiff confirmed the number of gamblings at the time of the contract, and because the plaintiff did not pay the intermediate payment at his own discretion, the plaintiff did not have the right of rescission, and the defendant did not have the right of rescission, and therefore is not obligated to return the down
2. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6, and evidence Nos. 5, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on July 10, 2015 for purchasing KRW 50,000 on the day of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 10,000,000 on July 20, 2015, and the intermediate payment of KRW 30,000,000 on July 25, 2015. The above sales contract provides that “10,000 guarantees” under the special terms and conditions of the above sales contract, and that “the seller intended to manage until shipment” until shipment, and that the Plaintiff sent a certificate of the content of the contract to the Defendant on July 21, 2015 on the ground that there was a lack of proof of the content of the contract that the Plaintiff sent out the number of part payments to the Defendant.