The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the evidence cited by the court below, including the evidence No. 1-7 (Examination of Suspect) and the testimony of the non-party to the witness, the defendant shows mental disturbance on the basis of three degrees pictures, and it is impossible for the defendant to walk, and all legal acts such as the management of the defendant's property, etc., such as the management of the defendant's property, have been done in a manner that the non-party to the defendant, who is a large father of the defendant, holds the defendant's seal impression and handles it on behalf of the defendant and informs the defendant later. In particular, since the contract of this case was concluded on the place where the plaintiff, the defendant, the non-party, the non-party, and the broker, etc. are located at the defendant's home and home, the defendant affixed the seal directly on the contract, so it is possible for the defendant to communicate to some extent, and therefore, we affirm the reasoning of the court below that the contract of this case was lawfully

In addition, in this case, the defendant's marking the name of the seller to the non-party and eight persons has concluded a contract under the name of the defendant's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '', his 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' and ''

On the second ground for appeal

In accordance with Article 565 of the Civil Act, in order for a seller to repay a double amount of the down payment and cancel the contract, the seller shall reimburse the down payment until the buyer commences the performance. The commencement of performance in this context refers to a case where the seller performs part of the performance of the obligation to the extent objectively recognizable from the outside or performs the premised act necessary for the performance, and it is insufficient to simply prepare the performance, but it does not necessarily lead to the extent of offering the performance in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da509 delivered on July 27, 1976).

According to evidence cited by the court below such as evidence Nos. 6-1 through 5, evidence Nos. 11-1, 2, and 13 and witness testimony, the court below's finding that the plaintiff sought the money deposited in Incheon Investment Finance Corporation for the payment of the remainder on June 21, 1990 following the payment date of the purchase and sale contract of this case and asked the non-party for the preparation of documents for the registration of transfer, although he notified the non-party that he had prepared the remainder on June 21, 1990, he would be suspected of not having any intention to perform the contract of this case. Thus, the court below's finding that the non-party applied for the provisional disposition for the prohibition of disposal of this case's land since he did not have any intention to perform the contract of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and if the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff started to pay the remainder on June 21, 199, the court below's finding that the plaintiff started to perform the sale contract of this case.

On the third ground for appeal

In the real estate sales contract, the obligation to pay the remainder and the obligation to transfer ownership are related to simultaneous performance, unless there are special circumstances. However, the court cannot make a decision as to the simultaneous performance unless there is a defense as to the simultaneous performance by the parties, and it is impossible to render a decision ordering the repayment. Thus, the court below's decision ordering the defendant to perform the obligation to transfer ownership in the case of this case where the defendant did not submit a defense to the effect that the payment of the remainder will be made in repayment, is proper, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit or by failing to comply with the reasoning. The precedent of

There is no reason for this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)