beta
Text
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the defendant, except for further determination as to the defendant’s assertion as set forth in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and such conclusion is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. On the 11st day of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the appeal shall be subject to the "reason for non-performance" of the 13th day of the judgment of the court of first instance as "reason for non-performance and non-performance"
3. Additional determination as to the defendant's assertion
A. The assertion that the plaintiffs did not have the right to rescission 1) is not entitled to obtain the right to rescission of each sales contract of this case on the grounds of the defendant's default, since the plaintiffs fulfilled the obligation to pay the balance to the defendant or did not provide such performance. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiffs agreed with the defendant to pay the balance of each sales contract of this case as a loan, and notified the defendant of the fact that he completed preparations to receive a loan from a financial institution, thereby completing the obligation to pay the balance, can be deemed to have completed the obligation to pay the balance.
Furthermore, even if the plaintiffs did not complete the obligation to pay the remainder, if the seller's obligation to transfer ownership under the sales contract becomes impossible or the seller clearly expresses his/her intent not to perform the contract, the buyer's obligation to pay the remainder is not required to provide the buyer's obligation to pay the remainder at the same time when the buyer cancels the sales contract on such ground (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da22850, Jan. 24, 2003; 2015Da11984, Sept. 26, 2017).