(a) A case rejecting a seller’s claim on the cancellation of contract on the ground that the highest notice of excessive amount is unlawful in light of the unpaid balance;

(b) The extent of furnishing the counter-performance of one's own obligation to cancel the contract in a bilateral contract in a simultaneous performance relationship for the other party's default;

A. Where each sales contract for a building site, building, and forest land is concluded separately by a separate contract, if the seller demands the buyer to pay the balance of the building site, building, and forest land in a lump sum, the seller’s demand for the performance of the balance premised on the purchase and sale of the building site, forest land and forest land at the time was the highest amount excessive in light of the fact that the unpaid balance of the building site and building only at the time was the amount which does not exceed 1/4 of the total balance including forest land, and it is apparent that the seller would not receive it even if the buyer provided the unpaid balance of the building site and building, and thus the highest amount is the highest amount in excess and thus, rejected the seller’s claim for the cancellation of the contract on the building site and

B. In a bilateral contract in which simultaneous performance is related, the person who wants to cancel the contract on the ground of the other party's non-performance shall provide the other party with the performance of his obligation in the simultaneous performance relationship, and if the other party's act is required in the performance of his obligation, he shall complete the preparation to perform at any time, and the other party shall be notified of the intention to receive it, and it shall not be sufficient to have the other party go through the delay of performance, and it shall not be sufficient to have the preparation attitude of performance.

A. Article 544 of the Civil Act; Articles 460 and 536 of the Civil Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 91Da38723, 38730 Decided July 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 2520). (B) Supreme Court Decision 89Meu34022 Decided June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1573). Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2198 (Gong1987, 357) Decided October 11, 1994 (limited to cases)

Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Gain Chemical Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Daejeon High Court Decision 92Na594 delivered on April 19, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the records, the court below concluded the sales contract for the real estate of this case and the forest of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant separately by a separate contract, and thus, the defendant's demand for the performance of KRW 132,882,00 on the premise that the remaining payment of the real estate of this case and the forest of this case was made in a lump sum transaction of the real estate of this case on December 4, 1990 to the plaintiff on December 4, 190 is an excessive highest amount in light of the fact that the remaining amount of the real estate of this case was KRW 30,282,00, and even if the plaintiff provided only the above amount of KRW 30,282,00, it is clear that the defendant did not receive it, and thus, the above highest amount is the so-called excessive excessive amount and thus the defendant's rejection of the defendant's claim for cancellation of the contract is justifiable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for cancellation of contract

There is no reason to issue this issue.

In addition, a person who intends to cancel a contract on the ground of the other party's non-performance in a bilateral contract with a simultaneous performance relationship shall provide the other party with the performance of his own obligation, and if the other party's act is required in the performance of his obligation, he shall complete the preparation to perform at any time, shall be notified to the other party and shall be allowed to enter the other party into the delay of performance, but the other party shall be allowed to receive it, and the preparation for the performance shall not be sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da38723, 38730 delivered on July 24, 192). The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that there was no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as seen above, since the court below issued a certificate of seal necessary for the transfer of real estate's name on November 17, 1990 with the notice of payment of the remaining balance, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's obligation to change the name of the real estate in the simultaneous performance relationship.

Therefore, there is no reason for this issue guidance.

In addition, the Defendant’s attorney’s other grounds of appeal asserted as the grounds of appeal cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal since it criticizes the judgment of the court below as it was not alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)