beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 36,062,950 as well as 20% per annum from February 4, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 25, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the purchase of Nos. 302-1 (hereinafter “instant contract for sale in lots”) located in the Musuranian Recreation 474-1 (hereinafter “instant contract for sale in lots”) and paid KRW 36,062,950 in total as the down payment and the intermediate payment.
B. Although the scheduled completion date of the instant sales contract was set on March 3, 201, and the date of use of the container was set on June 201, respectively, the completion of the instant sales contract was not yet completed due to the application for statutory management of the construction project.
C. Meanwhile, in the case where the instant sales contract for a completed site becomes unable to use the container for more than three months from the starting date of the use of the container due to the reasons such as the Defendant’s completion delay, or where the Defendant’s execution of the contract becomes objectively impossible, the Plaintiff may cancel the contract.
(main sentence of section 12(3). (d)
The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the instant sales contract on the ground of completion delay by serving the instant complaint on the Defendant.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, each entry in Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination:
A. According to the fact that the sales contract in this case was cancelled upon the exercise of the plaintiff's right to cancel the contract upon the completion of the defendant, so the defendant is obligated to return the sale price paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as its restitution and the damages for delay after the delivery of the copy of the complaint as claimed by the plaintiff.
B. The defendant's assertion (1) The defendant asserts that the restriction of the right of rescission is limited to the plaintiff's exercise of the right of rescission according to the separate provision of the contract for sale in this case, since the completion body is not attributable to
Article 3(3) of the instant sales contract (Evidence A No. 1) which is the separate clause that the Defendant landed, "The scheduled period determined by the Defendant is not a cause attributable to the Defendant, but a natural disaster.