[1] Where one of the parties to an exchange contract agrees to take over collateral obligations of the right to collateral security on the exchanged object in lieu of the payment of the amount corresponding to the difference between the exchanged object, whether the other party fulfills his/her obligations under the exchange contract by transferring other property rights than the difference (affirmative)

[2] Whether a contract for exchange may be rescinded on the ground that the person who assumed the secured obligation under the above [1] has neglected to repay and thus is likely to enforce the right to collateral security, and the other party has inevitably repaid the secured obligation (affirmative)

[3] In cases where both parties to an exchange contract have failed to perform all the obligation to pay the secured debt and the obligation to transfer ownership of the other party with respect to the object of exchange acquired by one of the parties to the exchange, and the due date is the same (affirmative); and whether the other party has to perform his/her obligation in order to exercise the right to rescind the agreement (affirmative)

[1] Where one of the parties to an exchange contract agrees to take over the secured debt of the right to collateral security on the object to be transferred from the other party in lieu of the payment of a supplementary amount equivalent to the difference in each property right subject to exchange, barring any special circumstance, the transferee of the obligation shall fulfill the obligation under the exchange contract by transferring the remaining property right excluding the above supplementary amount to the other party.

[2] [1] In special circumstances where one of the parties to an exchange contract accepting the secured obligation under the above [1] neglected to repay the secured obligation of the right to collateral security, which is an undertaking obligation, and thus the auction procedure has already been initiated or may be commenced by the execution of the right to collateral security established in relation to the exchanged object, and where the other party makes it difficult to evaluate that one of the parties taking over the obligation has not paid the secured obligation, such as the repayment of the secured obligation, etc. to prevent it, the other party shall have a claim for damages or indemnity equivalent to the equivalent amount of the debt, and on the other hand

[3] If one of the parties to an exchange contract receives the principal and interest of loan from the other party in lieu of the payment of the difference in the object of exchange and the obligation to pay the principal and interest of loan and the obligation to transfer ownership under the exchange contract where the contract is not terminated without fulfilling all the obligation to transfer ownership of the other party, the above obligation to pay the principal and interest of loan according to the exchange contract which is a bilateral contract and the obligation to transfer ownership are concurrently performed. Therefore, when the other party gives notice of cancellation pursuant to the rescission reservation agreement, the other party has the right to lawfully obtain the right to cancel the contract and to provide the other party

[1] Articles 454 and 596 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 454, 544, and 596 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 536, 544, and 596 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Da23193 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 962) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da2190 delivered on May 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1682), Supreme Court Decision 97Da1273 delivered on June 24, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2271) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 80Da2381 delivered on April 14, 1981 (Gong1981, 1389), Supreme Court Decision 91Da43107 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1582, 1999) 96Da397989 delivered on June 16, 197, Supreme Court Decision 97Da196389 delivered on June 29, 19697

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Seohae General Law Office, Attorneys Ansan-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na26946 delivered on February 11, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 판결에서 채용하고 있는 증거들을 종합하여, 소외 1은 1995. 6. 22. 피고와의 사이에, 소외 1은 원심판시 이 사건 목욕탕에 관한 소외 한진건설 주식회사에 대한 점포 임차권을 포함한 목욕탕 영업을 피고에게 양도하고, 피고는 피고 소유의 원심판시 이 사건 연립주택의 소유권을 소외 1에게 이전하기로 하되, 이 사건 연립주택에 관하여 설정된 소외 하나은행 명의의 근저당권의 피담보채무인 피고의 위 은행에 대한 대출 원금 70,000,000원 및 그 이자채무의 이행을 인수하기로 하는 내용의 이 사건 교환계약을 체결하면서, 1995. 6. 30.까지 피고는 소외 1에게 이 사건 연립주택에 관한 소유권이전등기서류를 교부하고 소외 1은 피고에게 이 사건 목욕탕 건물에 관한 임대차계약서 등을 교부하며, 피고는 위 대출금채무에 대한 1995. 6. 30.까지의 이자를 정산하고, 소외 1은 이 사건 목욕탕의 영업과 관련된 같은 날까지의 제세공과금을 납부하기로 하는 등의 약정을 한 사실, 그런데, 소외 1의 사정으로 인하여 1995. 6. 30.까지 이 사건 연립주택에 관하여 소외 1 명의의 소유권이전등기를 경료할 수 없게 되자, 소외 1과 피고 및 당시 이 사건 목욕탕을 실제로 경영하고 있던 소외 2를 대리한 소외 3 등 3인은 1995. 8. 3. 소외 2는 이 사건 목욕탕의 영업과 관련된 1995. 8. 2.까지의 제세공과금을, 소외 1은 이 사건 연립주택과 관련된 1995. 8. 3. 이후의 제세공과금과 위 하나은행 대출금의 이자 및 대출원금을 각 책임지고 처리하되, 소외 1이 1995. 12. 30.까지 피고로부터 이 사건 연립주택에 관한 소유권등기를 이전하여 가지 않을 경우에는 피고가 이 사건 연립주택을 임의로 처분하여 제세공과금과 대출금이자를 지급하고 이 사건 교환계약을 해지하여도 소외 1이 이의를 제기하지 않기로 하는 내용의 약정을 체결하는 한편, 피고는 1995. 8. 3. 소외 1로부터 이 사건 목욕탕을 인수하여 같은 날 한진건설 주식회사와의 사이에 원심판시와 같은 새로운 임대차계약을 체결한 사실, 원고는 1996. 2. 15. 소외 1과의 사이에, 원고는 원심판시의 레드피아 찜질방에 대한 원고의 점포 임차권을 포함한 영업을 소외 1에게 양도하고, 소외 1은 원고에게 이 사건 연립주택의 소유권을 이전하여 주기로 하는 내용의 교환계약을 체결한 사실을 인정하고, 위 인정 사실에 기초하여, 달리 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 피고는 소외 1에게 이 사건 연립주택에 관하여 1995. 6. 22. 교환계약을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있다고 판단한 다음, 소외 1이 하나은행에 대한 대출금상환채무 등을 이행하지 아니하여 피고가 이를 이유로 1996. 1. 19. 이 사건 교환계약을 해제하였으므로 피고의 이 사건 연립주택에 관한 소유권이전등기의무는 소멸하였다는 피고의 항변에 대하여, 그 판결에서 채용하고 있는 증거들을 종합하여, 소외 1이 위 대출금에 대한 1995년 8월분 이자의 1/2과 같은 해 9월분 이후의 이자를 연체하여 하나은행으로부터 연체이자의 지급을 독촉받은 피고가 원심판시와 같이 2회에 걸쳐 1995. 12. 31.까지의 약정이자 및 연체이자를 지급한 후, 위 대출금의 원금상환기일인 1995. 12. 31.이 도과한 후인 1996. 3. 8. 이 사건 연립주택에 근저당권을 설정하고 소외 한일은행으로부터 금 100,000,000원을 대출받아 1996. 3. 9. 하나은행에 대한 위 대출금채무의 원금 70,000,000원과 당시까지의 연체이자를 상환한 사실, 한편, 피고는 1995. 8. 21. 소외 1에게 이 사건 연립주택에 관한 소유권이전등기서류 중 부동산매매용 인감증명서 1통만을 교부한 후, 1995. 12. 상순경부터 소외 1로부터 나머지 이전등기서류의 교부를 요구받고도 은행대출금 이자의 상환 등을 요구하면서 이에 불응하다가, 1996. 1. 19. 소외 1에게, 그가 은행대출금을 상환하지 아니함은 물론 이 사건 연립주택에 관한 소유권이전등기를 하여 가지 아니하였다는 이유로 소외 1이 1996. 1. 31.까지 이를 이행하지 아니할 경우 이 사건 교환계약은 자동해제된다는 취지의 해제통고를 한 사실을 인정한 다음, 교환계약에서 각 교환 목적물의 가격이 균등하지 않을 때에 일방이 상대방에게 그 차액 상당의 보충금의 지급에 갈음하여 상대방으로부터 이전받을 목적물에 관한 근저당권의 피담보채무를 인수하기로 한 경우 일방은 이 보충금을 제외한 나머지 재산권을 이전해 줌으로써 상대방에 대한 교환계약상의 의무를 다한다 할 것이고, 다만 일방이 인수채무를 이행하지 않음으로써 보충금을 지급하지 않은 것과 동일하다고 평가할 수 있는 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에 한하여 상대방에게 계약해제권이 발생한다 할 것인데, 이 사건의 경우에는 소외 1이 하나은행에 대한 위 대출금의 이자지급을 연체하고 원금상환기일이 지나도록 원금을 상환하지 아니하여 피고가 하나은행의 독촉을 받고 위 대출원리금을 상환하였다고 하더라도, 피고가 위 대출금을 상환한 자금이 피고의 다른 재산이 아니라 교환 목적물인 이 사건 연립주택에 근저당권을 설정하고 다른 은행으로부터 대출받은 금원으로서 이는 결국 이 사건 연립주택의 소유권을 이전받게 되는 소외 1의 물적 부담으로 돌아가게 되는 점 및 피고가 위 대출금 상환에 필요한 자금을 훨씬 초과한 금원을 한일은행으로부터 대출받은 점 등을 감안하면, 이를 피고가 이 사건 교환계약을 해제할 수 있는 특별한 사정이 있는 경우라고 보기 어렵고, 가사 이를 해제할 수 있는 경우로 본다 하더라도 쌍무계약인 이 사건 교환계약에서 피고가 이를 해제하기 위하여 자기 채무인 이 사건 연립주택에 관한 소유권이전등기서류의 교부의무의 이행을 제공하였다는 점에 관한 아무런 증거가 없으므로 위 1996. 1. 19.자 해제통고는 부적법하여 그 효력이 없다는 등의 이유로 피고의 위 해제항변을 배척하고, 소외 1을 대위하여 피고에 대하여 이 사건 연립주택에 관하여 이 사건 교환계약을 원인으로 한 소외 1 앞으로의 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구하는 원고의 이 사건 청구를 인용하고 있다.

2. Where one of the parties to an exchange contract agrees to take over the secured debt of the right to collateral security on the object to be transferred from the other party in lieu of the payment of the amount corresponding to the difference in each property right which is the object of exchange, barring any special circumstance, one party who takes over the obligation shall transfer the remaining property right excluding the above secured debt to the other party and thereby fulfill the obligation under the exchange contract. However, in special circumstances where one who takes over the obligation is deemed to have taken over the obligation to pay the secured debt, due to the execution of the right to collateral security established on the object of exchange by neglecting the repayment of the secured debt which is the obligation to take over, and there is a special circumstance to deem that one who takes over the obligation has not been paid the secured debt to prevent the other party, such as repayment of the secured debt which is the obligation to take over, the other party shall have the obligation to claim the equivalent amount of the secured debt or indemnity against the person taking over the obligation, and on the other hand, the exchange contract may be rescinded on the ground of special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da231294Da94.

However, according to the above facts and records acknowledged by the court below, since the non-party 1 and the defendant entered into the exchange contract of this case on June 22, 1995, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 agreed to accept the above amount of 70,00,000 won for the difference between the value of the apartment house of this case to be transferred to the non-party 1 and the defendant on June 9, 199 to the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 on June 3, 195, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 did not pay the principal and interest of the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 to the non-party 9 on June 3, 199, the non-party 1 and the defendant did not pay the above amount of interest on the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 to the non-party 9 on June 30, 1995.

Therefore, in the judgment of the court below, the funds that the defendant repaid the above loans to Han Bank are not contributed to the other property owned by the defendant, but to the apartment house of this case which is the subject of exchange, which is the amount of loans from Han Bank, which is ultimately returned to the physical expenses of the non-party 1 who is entitled to transfer the ownership of the apartment house of this case, and the defendant received loans from Han Bank more than the amount necessary for the repayment of the above loans from Han Bank, it is difficult to conclude that there are special circumstances where the defendant can rescind the exchange contract of this case. Thus, the rejection of the above defense of the defendant's rejection of the above defense for rescission is not a case where the interpretation of the disposal document of this case was applied or the decision is inconsistent, or there is an error of law

3. However, as seen earlier, the agreement between the non-party 1 and the defendant on August 3, 1995 on the reservation of the right to rescission is clear that in addition to the agreement that the non-party 1 made on behalf of the defendant to pay the principal and interest, etc. of the loans of Han Bank on behalf of the defendant, it is the agreement that the right to rescission should be reserved to the defendant in case the non-party 1 has completed the registration of ownership transfer by December 30, 1995. Thus, in order to create the right to rescission of the above agreement, in addition to the grounds for cancellation as seen above, the defendant must be required to provide the non-party 1 with the obligation to transfer ownership to the non-party 1. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the agreement that reserved the right to rescind without the provision of his own obligation to the defendant.

In addition, as seen earlier, Nonparty 1 took over the principal of the loan to Han Bank and the obligation to pay interest after August 3, 1995, in lieu of paying the amount equivalent to the difference of each object of the exchange contract of this case. Thus, in this case where it cannot be found that there is any other agreement as to the time of performance, etc., Nonparty 1 agreed to pay interest at each payment date according to the above loan obligation of this case and to bear the obligation to pay principal on December 31, 1995 (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da23193 delivered on February 12, 1993). Meanwhile, since Nonparty 1’s obligation to pay the above loan of this case is the obligation to pay interest of this case to the defendant 19, the above obligation to pay interest of this case to the defendant 2, the above obligation to pay the principal of the loan of this case, and the obligation of the defendant to pay the ownership transfer registration of this case to the defendant 19, the above obligation of the defendant 2, the above obligation to pay ownership transfer registration of this case 96.

However, according to the records, as duly determined by the court below, the defendant was found to have failed to comply with the request of the non-party 1 for delivery of the certificate of personal seal impression among the documents required for the above transfer registration of ownership on August 21, 1995 and the non-party 1 for delivery of the remaining documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership on the apartment house of this case from the superior patrolman on December 12, 1995, and it cannot be found in the records that the defendant delivered the documents required for registration to the non-party 1 or offered the remaining documents until the expiration of the due date after December 30, 1995, which is the due date of the defendant's obligation for the above transfer registration of ownership, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant failed to provide the non-party 1 with the above notification due to the non-party 1's non-party 1's absence at the time of the above cancellation, and the defendant's remaining testimony seems to have been rejected.

Therefore, the court below rejected the defendant's defense of cancellation on the ground that the defendant's notification of cancellation is illegal and invalid, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified in conclusion, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, the interpretation and application of the disposition document, or the judgment contrary to the disposition document, or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for acquiring the exchange contract or the right to cancel. The grounds of appeal are not acceptable.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)