In a case where the obligee has given a peremptory notice for performance with a specific period, whether the obligee shall prepare for the receipt of performance at the place of performance performance at the last day of the period (affirmative), and the place of performance (=the place of agreement)

In a case where the obligee has notified the obligor of the rescission of the contract for the cause of the obligor’s delay of performance by specifying a certain period as a prerequisite for the obligor’s delay of performance, it is reasonable to view that the obligee has the right of rescission because the obligor’s performance or offer of performance has not been made within the peremptory period, notwithstanding the existence of notification as to the date and time of performance from the obligor, at least the last day of such period must have the preparation to receive performance at the place of performance. In this case, the place of performance is the agreed place

Articles 544 and 467 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na20189 delivered on October 13, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the plaintiff purchased the above real estate from the defendant on March 8, 191 at KRW 315,00,000 for the above 40,000 for the above 50,000,000 for the above 40,000,000 for the above 10,000,000 won for the contract, and the remaining 215,000,00 won for the remainder 30,000,000 won for the above 40,000,000 won for the above 10,000,000 won for the above 30,000,000,000 won for the above 10,000,000 won for the above 10,000,000,000 won for the above 30,00,000,000 won for the above real estate, which had not been notified to the plaintiff.

However, in case where the obligee has notified the obligor to perform the contract on the ground of the obligor's delay of performance by specifying a certain period as a prerequisite for the obligor's delay of performance, it is reasonable for the obligee to have prepared to receive the repayment at the place of performance at least on the last day of that period, regardless of the obligor's notification of the date and time of performance from the obligor. In this case, the place of performance is the agreed place. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the Plaintiff received the notice of performance from the Defendant and agreed to the place of performance of the remainder at the end of that period at least 9:0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :00 :0 :0 :0 :0 :00 : 1.00 : 200 : 200 : 200 : 200 : 200 : 20,000 : 3.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the inconsistency or cancellation of the contract, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)