logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.21 2016나2050410
계약금반환
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff against the conjunctive claim amounting to order payment below.

Reasons

1. Pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 2, 7, 5, 1) shall be cited on the grounds of this judgment.

except that part of the following shall be dried or added:

On February 24, 2012, 201, the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, 7 parts, “D, as the representative director of the Plaintiff, aims to build a driving school for automobiles with the Defendants,” and “D, as the representative director of the Plaintiff, has been admitted as the site of a driving school for automobiles operated by the Plaintiff due to the development project, coloring the new site of a driving school on February 24, 2012.”

In the first instance judgment, “part of the testimony of witness H of this court” shall be added in front of the “the purport of the entire pleading” in the first instance judgment five pages.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In order to obtain permission from a driving school for automobiles in the instant forest, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to pay the balance after obtaining permission for development activities in the remaining parts of the instant forest including “Article 2(2)” and securing roads leading to the instant forest and field.

However, the Defendants arbitrarily deleted the above road and obtained permission for development activities, and promised to secure the road through design change, but sold the forest of this case to ASEAN Co., Ltd. without obtaining permission for development activities for design change, thereby failing to perform the obligation under the instant sales contract.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff rescinded the instant sales contract.

In addition, the Defendants agreed to return the down payment to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 240,000,000, equivalent to the down payment, in accordance with the agreement for compensation for damages arising from nonperformance or for the return of down payment.

B. Preliminaryly, this case’s rescission declaration made by the Defendants for non-performance of the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the purchase price.

arrow