(a) Legal relations where all co-owners sell their shares in common property to the same buyer according to a single sales contract in form;

(b) The case holding that one of the sellers cannot rescind the part of the sales contract for one’s own shares, considering that “A” in substance is a single sales contract;

A. In a case where one real estate is jointly owned by several persons, each co-owner may freely dispose of the shares owned by him. Thus, even if all co-owners sell all shares owned by them to the same purchaser under a single sales contract in form, a separate sales contract was established by each co-ownership in substance, barring special circumstances where the obligation to transfer ownership and payment of each share are indivisible by the parties’ declaration of intent, and it is possible for some co-owners to cancel the sales contract for each co-owner's share based on the buyer's failure to pay the purchase price.

(b) The case holding that, with respect to paragraph (a) of this Article, only the part of the sales contract with respect to one’s own shares may not be rescinded on the ground that the seller was unable to receive part of the sales amount corresponding to his/her share ratio, on the ground that it was in fact an indivisible obligation for ownership transfer and payment of each share by the parties’ declaration of intent.

Articles 263 and 547(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da262,263 Delivered on June 25, 1974

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Suwon District Court Decision 93Na11323 delivered on November 4, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Where several persons jointly own one real estate, each co-owner may freely dispose of his/her shares. Thus, even if all co-owners sell all shares of the co-owned property to the same purchaser under a single sales contract in form, a separate sales contract was established by each co-ownership in substance, barring special circumstances where the obligation to transfer ownership and payment of each share is indivisible by the parties’ declaration of intent, and it is possible for some co-owners to cancel a sales contract for the co-ownership based on the buyer's failure to pay the purchase price.

The court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the plaintiff and the non-party 1 sold the real estate of this case jointly owned by them in the ratio of one half of their own shares (at the time of the sales contract, the real estate of this case was jointly owned by other co-owners, but finally confirmed by the plaintiff and the non-party 1's co-ownership), (b) the plaintiff and the non-party 1 delivered to the defendant 1 documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer as to the real estate of this case; (c) the plaintiff and the non-party 1 trusted the real estate of this case to the defendant 2 for title trust and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the defendant 2; (d) the plaintiff 1 paid the above non-party 1 the full amount of the purchase price corresponding to the share of the plaintiff with the above non-party 1, but the part of the purchase price was not paid to the plaintiff; (e) the sale contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 with the declaration of intention of cancellation due to the above non-party 1's default; and (e.

However, according to the records, the sales contract of this case was concluded as a single sales contract for the entire real estate of this case between the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the non-party 2 who representing the non-party 1 as co-owner, and the defendant. The sales contract of this case was determined as a single sales contract for the entire real estate of this case without specifying the sale price by the seller, and most of the sale price was paid to the seller individually from the buyer, but the plaintiff 1 paid the sale price to the above non-party 2, the buyer's agent, and the above non-party 2 paid the purchase price to the seller. Further, the buyer purchased the real estate of this case in order to newly construct and operate the gas charging station on the real estate of this case, and the buyer was aware of the circumstances that each co-ownership share of the real estate of this case was indivisible for the purpose of purchase. Accordingly, the sales contract of this case was a single sales contract for the actual purpose of which the parties' declaration of intention to transfer ownership and payment obligations are indivisible, and therefore, even if the plaintiff, one of the seller, cannot cancel the entire sales contract of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the exercise of the right of rescission by erroneous interpretation of the contract of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the premise that the contract of this case is a two separate sales contracts established separately for each share of co-ownership. Among them, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the exercise of the right of rescission by erroneous interpretation of the contract

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)