The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of law in failing to disclose which documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership were provided by the seller while the sales contract in which the payment of the remaining amount was made simultaneously with the provision of documents for transfer of ownership and the

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of law in failing to disclose which documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership were provided by the seller while the sales contract in which the payment of the remaining amount was made simultaneously with the provision of documents for transfer of ownership and the

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 536 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 84Na1007, 84Na1008 (Counterclaim Judgment) decided November 21, 1984

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to the main lawsuit shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. For its reasons, the judgment below concluded that the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from the Defendant on July 6, 1981 to KRW 5,50,000 (including the Defendant’s debt balance) on the same day; KRW 300,000 on the same day; KRW 2,700,500 on August 13, 198; and KRW 2,500 on the remainder 2,50,000 on the same year; the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 300,00 on September 10 of the same year in redemption with the required documents for ownership transfer registration; the Plaintiff paid KRW 300,00 on the same day to the Defendant; and the Plaintiff paid the remainder to the Defendant on August 30 of the same year, 1984; and the Plaintiff did not lawfully conclude that the remainder was discharged on September 10, 1981, and the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder to the Plaintiff by 300,000,0000.

2. On October 20, 1981, non-party 4 of the court below's decision after reviewing the evidence used by the court below in accordance with the records, testified that the non-party 3 would put on his table the items of the registration of transfer in the presence of the plaintiff, non-party 2, and non-party 3 in the presence of the plaintiff, the non-party 4 of the court below's decision that the non-party 3 would give the plaintiff a demand to pay the remaining amount. However, there is no evidence suggesting that the plaintiff was presented with the documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership of the building in this case, and there is no evidence suggesting that the non-party 4 notified the plaintiff of the payment of the remaining amount after keeping the documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership of the building in this case until the time of filing the lawsuit. Thus, even if the above sales contract was cancelled, it is natural in view of the nature of simultaneous performance, unless the defendant prepared the documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the cancellation of contract as above is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to simultaneous implementation and in the misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, and therefore its illegality constitutes the grounds for reversal of the judgment of the court below under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the theory of lawsuit that controversy this point is reasonable and therefore,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)