logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018. 08. 16. 선고 2018두43316 판결
계약 해지로 받은 위약금은 분양계약 해제에 따른 위약금임.[일부패소]
Title

Penalty received by termination of a contract shall be paid for breach of contract after cancellation of contract.

Summary

Since the contract for sale in lots was cancelled and the penalty was paid, the penalty shall not be deemed as the penalty for the cancellation of the contract for sale in lots, and it shall not be deemed as the penalty for delay in moving into the house, and the statutory interest on the original payment shall be included in the range of restitution under Article 548 of the Civil Act. Therefore, it is difficult to view it as

Cases

2018du4316 Global income and revocation of such disposition.

Plaintiff-Appellant

arA et al. 14

Defendant-Appellee

Head of Gangnam District Tax Office other than

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu40541 Decided April 6, 2018

Imposition of Judgment

August 16, 2018

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

Reasons

Examining the lower judgment and the grounds of appeal, the allegation of the grounds of appeal by appellant is in the final appeal procedure.

Since it is apparent that there is no reason for falling under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Law, an appeal under Article 5 of that Act

All of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

arrow