logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.06.05 2019나38035
손해배상(기)
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 judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the event that the Plaintiff did not pay any balance by February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a written undertaking dated December 16, 2013, stating the Plaintiff’s intent to cancel the instant sales contract and waive the down payment. However, the Plaintiff failed to pay any balance by February 28, 2014.

Even if the above promise itself cannot be deemed to have been rescinded, and the defendant must have a peremptory notice for performance. However, the defendant sold the real estate of this case to a third party without a peremptory notice for performance to the plaintiff. Since the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded, the defendant is obligated to return the down payment amount of KRW 30 million received from the plaintiff pursuant to paragraph (2) of the special terms and conditions of the contract of this case.

In full view of the facts acknowledged by the first instance court, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff prepared the Plaintiff’s promise as of December 16, 2013 with the intent to accept the disadvantage that the instant sales contract would automatically terminate if the Plaintiff did not pay any balance by February 28, 2014, with the intention to accept the payment of the balance automatically. Ultimately, regardless of the Defendant’s performance notice, the instant sales contract automatically becomes void, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is with merit.

arrow