If the obligation to pay in advance and the obligation to transfer ownership are to be fulfilled simultaneously, if there is a provision for the performance of the registration procedure, it is necessary to complete the preparation of all documents necessary for the registration procedure to the extent that it can be possible to provide the reality at any time and to notify the receipt thereof.

Where the obligation of payment and the performance of transfer registration of ownership are in a simultaneous performance relationship, if it is intended that there was a provision for the performance of the registration procedure, one of the documents necessary for the registration procedure shall be prepared to provide the reality at any time, and the intention shall be notified and notified to receive it

Article 536 of the Civil Act, Article 460 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2465, 2466 delivered on June 4, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2466 delivered on July 4, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s agent are examined.

In a housing site sale and purchase contract, the other party bears the obligation to pay the housing site price and the other party bears the obligation to perform the registration of ownership transfer at the same time, and the execution of the registration procedure requires the other party's act. Thus, in order to have an objection to the existence of an objection, it is necessary to complete the preparation of all documents necessary for the registration procedure to the extent that it is possible to provide the reality at any time and to notify the intention to receive it, and the mere fact that the other party has prepared or prepared to transfer the housing site, such as the theory of lawsuit, can not be viewed

In the simultaneous performance relationship between the plaintiff's obligation of registration of transfer of ownership and the defendant's obligation of payment, the other party can refuse to perform his own obligation until the other party performs his obligation. Thus, in order to place the other party into a delay of performance, the plaintiff must perform his own obligation first. In this case, there is no evidence suggesting that the plaintiff provided the above obligation first, and there is no evidence suggesting that the plaintiff provided the above obligation first, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff should cancel the contract by asking the responsibility for the delay of performance after the plaintiff first completed the registration of transfer of ownership. It cannot be viewed that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to simultaneous performance obligations in the original judgment, nor by misunderstanding and criticism of the contents of the original edition.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, if the defendant completed the building before the due date for the late payment of the site of this case and sold it to a third party pursuant to the agreement between the defendant and the defendant (Evidence A No. 3 and B No. 2), the plaintiff's transfer registration for the ownership of the site can occur again by mutual consent with the third party and the defendant can do so directly from the plaintiff to the third party, but it is separate from the fact that the plaintiff should provide the obligation of the ownership transfer registration under the bilateral contract in order to bear the responsibility for the delay of the payment of the remaining price, so there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff provided the obligation first to the above purport, so there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff provided the obligation first. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the defendant had delayed payment of the remaining price. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's contract cancellation cannot be acknowledged, which is premised on the fact that the defendant did not start the construction on the building site of this case, and that the defendant did not express his intention to pay the remaining price in advance, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of supplementary appeal by the Plaintiff’s agent constitutes a new ground of appeal submitted after the statutory period expires, and thus, does not determine thereon.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of appeal.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)