beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of rescission of agreement, which was added in the court of first instance as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of rescission of agreement, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
[Supplementary part] On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a text message to the Defendant’s agent F to the Plaintiff that “the return of down payment due to the termination of the contract is requested.” On November 29, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a text message to the Plaintiff on November 29, 2014, stating that “the Plaintiff will return the deposit except for the return fee when the deposit is returned.” The instant lease contract is deemed to have been rescinded by agreement between the original and the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the remainder of the down payment should be returned to the original state.
In order to terminate an agreement or terminate an agreement, the requirement is that the opposite expression of intent, such as an offer and acceptance, should be agreed to terminate the validity of the agreement, as in the case of a general case of a contract. To establish such an agreement, the content of the intent expressed by both parties must be objectively identical.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da97338 Decided January 29, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da97338, Jan. 29, 2015). However, according to the above facts, the Defendant offered to the Plaintiff for the refund of the remainder payment of the lease deposit except for the real estate brokerage fee (so, the lease contract was null and void due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, brought a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the repayment of the down payment by asserting that there was a cause attributable to the Defendant.