[소유권이전등기청구사건][고집1948민,1]
In cases of payment made, and in cases of cancellation of contracts;
After one of the parties begins to perform the contract, the other party shall not exercise the right to cancel the contract after the payment is made in advance.
Article 557 of the former Civil Code
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and one other
This case is dismissed.
Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant, etc.
The defendant et al.'s representative seeks to revoke the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the plaintiff's representative is dismissed.
The actual public tender of both parties stated that the plaintiff's agent is not entitled to cancel the contract, even if the plaintiff's agent was unable to pay the balance by the date of the settlement, and the defendant et al. stated that the defendant et al. is not entitled to cancel the contract, even if the plaintiff et al. did not pay the balance by the date of the settlement, the transfer registration of the article No. 2 in the list No. 1 cannot be ordered to the defendant et al., and pursuant to Article 10 of the No. 10 of the No. 1 of the No. 2 of the No. 1 of this case, the right to cancel the contract is suspended, and the period of exercise of the right to cancel the contract is not equal to that of the defendant et al., the defendant et al., the sale and purchase of the article No. 1 of this case, and the right to cancel the contract is not equal to that of the plaintiff et al., the defendant et al., the defendant et al., the title of this right to cancel the contract.
As evidence, the plaintiff's agent submitted Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-1, 2, 6-1, 6-2, 7-1, 8, 9, and 2-3, 3, 4, and 5-4, and 8, 8, 9 of the court below witness Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the evidence Nos. 2 of the same Act, and used the results of the appraiser's appraisal No. 6 as profits.
The defendant et al.'s agent submitted Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and used the testimony of non-party 7, 8, 9, 10 of the original trial witness and defendant 2, and sought the examination of non-party 1, 10, and 3 of the witness and defendant 1, and sought the verification and appraisal of the building in this case, and sought the evidence Nos. 3, 5-1, 2, and 9 of the above evidence Nos. 1, 6-1, and 2 of the above evidence are used as profits.
In full view of the testimony and the whole purport of the argument by Non-party 2, 3, and 7 of the court below's testimony and evidence Nos. 1-1 which are not disputed between the parties concerned, the plaintiff's actual non-party 12 purchased for the plaintiff the land indicated in the annexed Table Nos. 1, 200,000 from the defendant, etc. on March 30, 1947 as the plaintiff's name, and paid 50,000,000 as the down payment. The half of the payment amount can be acknowledged to have been agreed on April 30 of the same year to pay the remainder on May 31 of the same year. Thus, the defendant's representative cannot be deemed to have sold the article No. 1 in the annexed Table No. 2 list, but if the article No. 2 is owned between the defendant and the defendant No. 1, it is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2, it can be found that the defendant No. 400,000.
In light of the above legal principles as to the non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's counter-
Judges Jeong Young (Presiding Judge) Definition of this interference