[명의이전절차][집21(1)민,056]
When the indication of intention of contract cancellation takes effect after repaying the amount of the down payment.
The expression of intent to cancel the contract is insufficient for the person who has received the down payment to redeem the double amount, and it is necessary to provide the double amount, and the effect of the cancellation of the contract can not occur only by the other party's convenience, but only by the other party's convenience, the effect of the cancellation of the contract can not occur.
Article 565 of the Civil Act
66Da736 delivered on July 5, 1966
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and two others
Daegu District Court Decision 71Na579 delivered on October 12, 1972, Daegu High Court Decision 71Na579 delivered on October 12, 1972
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s grounds of appeal.
According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, there was a sales contract between the original defendant and the original defendant on the right to the ○○yang, which was at issue in this case, but on June 5, 1970, the defendants expressed their intent to cancel the above contract and had 5,500,000 won added 5,000,000 won to the down payment that the defendants had already received, while expressing their intent to cancel the contract. The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff cannot cancel the above contract as this money and there was a refusal of the defendant's objection to cancel the contract, and thereafter, on July 2, 1970, both parties agreed to faithfully implement the above sales contract.
Examining the above fact-finding process conducted by the court below in the course of making a full deliberation, there is no illegality or error of law which misleads the fact-finding without the evidence as alleged in the arguments.
The expression of intent of the contract rescission that the person who received the contract deposit redeems the amount as much as the contract deposit is insufficient, and the effect of the contract cancellation takes place only upon the provision of performance of the contract amount (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da736 delivered on July 5, 196, Supreme Court Decision 66Da736 delivered on July 5, 196), and the other party's convenience may not bring about the effect of the contract cancellation in preference to only a part of the contract. Of course, as seen later, it may bring about such effect by the agreement of the parties. However, in this case, there was no agreement between the parties on this point. According to the facts of the plaintiff's claim, it is difficult to conclude that the above contract was cancelled due to the defendants' default on the contract of this case due to the above contract's breach of the contract of this case and claim the balance of the contract deposit (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da336 delivered on August 24, 197, 200).
The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of contract, since it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the parties' assertion.
Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.
This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.
Justices Spanmun-gu (Presiding Justice)