Effect of termination of a contract extended to the domicile of a person confined in prison.

In cases where a declaration of intention to terminate a contract is made at the domicile of the other party, even if the other party is detained in the prison at the time, the other party shall be deemed to have reached the lawful indication of intention to terminate the contract, unless there is any assertion that the other party was aware of the right to terminate the contract by himself/herself.

Articles 543 and 111 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul and Criminal District Court Incheon (74Gahap197) in the first instance trial.

All appeals are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

With respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2, the defendant 1 will implement the provisional registration, cancellation registration, and cancellation registration procedure of the right to claim ownership transfer transfer due to the trade promise on October 1, 1971, the receipt of the Seoul Civil and Criminal District Court Incheon Branch of the Seoul District Court on October 2, 1971, and the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to sale as of October 1, 1971, respectively. The defendant 2 ordered the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and paid KRW 24,00 each month from April 1, 1974 to the completion date of order.

Preliminary purport of claim, Defendant 1 shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,484,324 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from April 2, 1974 to the full payment date. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants both the first and second instances, and provisional execution declaration.

On October 10, 1972, the plaintiff sent 40,00 won for the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 on October 1, 1971, and rent 5% for interest, and on December 1, 1971, the plaintiff paid for the non-party 1's obligation to the non-party 1 until December 31, 1972, and he received the above provisional registration from the non-party 2 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 4 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 4 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 4 on the non-party 1 on the non-party 1 on the contrary 1 on the grounds that the plaintiff 2 was aware.

The plaintiff's notification of termination as above is a defense that the plaintiff was at the domicile of the plaintiff when the plaintiff was at the time when the plaintiff was at the prison due to the mother's case, and the plaintiff did not have received it. Thus, according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 14 (decision) without dispute over the establishment of the prison, the plaintiff was at the prison during the period from May 26, 1973 to March 8, 1974, and even if he was unable to receive the above notice of termination directly, the plaintiff was informed of such fact, or if he was at the time when he was at the domicile of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was at the legitimate arrival of the plaintiff's declaration of termination of this case at the domicile of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's defense as above is groundless.

The plaintiff's interest obligation against the non-party 1 is a so-called corporate bond, and the defendant did not report the adjusted bond at the time of the measure on August 3, 200, and asserts that the defendant's claim against the non-party 1 is extinguished. Therefore, since there is no dispute over the health class and the public nature portion, the plaintiff's interest obligation against the non-party 1 is presumed to have been reported to the non-party 1 according to the contents of the evidence No.

Finally, the plaintiff's provisional registration of this case was made by a pre-sale agreement that received as a collateral for debt against the non-party 1, and since the price of this case exceeds KRW 1,318,00 on October 1, 1971, which was at the time of the pre-contract, exceeds KRW 1,318,00,00, the defendant would dispose of this case's real estate at an unreasonably low price by intention or negligence, and thus, the defendant would have a duty to compensate the plaintiff for damages. Thus, the plaintiff would have a duty to compensate for the damages. Thus, the plaintiff's appraisal result of the non-party 5 at the trial or testimony of the non-party 6,7 at the court below as shown in the facts of the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 4-1,2,3 (Cbook sign, content, and a fixed deposit document) did not dispute the establishment of this case's provisional registration, and the appraisal result of the non-party 8 appraiser and the testimony of the non-party 4 witness, the above real estate price of this case cannot be considered as 900 won.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's title of this real estate against the defendant 2 is the plaintiff's owner. Since the defendant occupies this real estate without any title, the plaintiff's explanation and request for payment of money at the rate of KRW 24,000 per month from April 1, 1974. However, as seen earlier, since the transfer registration of ownership in the plaintiff's name has already been cancelled, the claim against the defendant 2 on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner is not the owner, the claim against the defendant 2 on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner is unnecessary to further examine.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims for objection shall be dismissed, and since the original judgment is consistent with this conclusion, the appeal shall be dismissed without merit, and it shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of appeal costs.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)