소유권이전등기 등
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following 2.2. judgment as to the assertion that the Defendants emphasized or added in this case by this court, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
A seller, including the Defendants, asked the Plaintiff to postpone the payment date of the remainder on February 15, 2015, and expressed his/her intent that “if the remainder is not paid by February 15, 2015, the sales contract shall be deemed to have no intention to purchase, and the sales contract shall be automatically rescinded,” and the Plaintiff promised to pay the remainder until that time.
Therefore, the instant sales contract has a special contract under which the contract is automatically rescinded even if the Defendants did not provide performance upon the Plaintiff’s remainder of payment. Therefore, the instant sales contract was rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s remainder of payment after February 15, 2015.
Judgment
In the real estate sales contract, even if there is an agreement that the contract shall be automatically rescinded if the buyer fails to pay the price by the date of payment of the remainder, barring special circumstances, the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller's obligation to register ownership transfer is concurrently performed. Thus, the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller's obligation to register ownership transfer on the date of payment of the remainder and provide the buyer with the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer and make the buyer known to the buyer and put the buyer into delay of performance, the sales contract shall be automatically rescinded. However, even if the buyer even though the time limit for the agreement was expired, the contract is not automatically rescinded.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da8600, Sept. 9, 1994). However, in the case of this case, the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 are not specifically indicated.