A. Whether the other party may withdraw at any time a statement unfavorable to himself/herself before being invoked (affirmative)

(b) The extent of provision for the performance of self-performance necessary for making the other party enter into the delay of performance in a bilateral contract as a requirement for cancellation of contract;

(a) Even if the party voluntarily testified the facts unfavorable to him, the confession does not take effect until the other party invokes it, and thus the other party may withdraw his statement at any time before the other party invokes it.

B. In order to cancel a contract on the ground of the other party's default in a bilateral contract, one must first provide the other party's performance and notify the other party of performance within a reasonable period of time to cause delay of performance. If the other party's performance is required, the other party shall complete the preparation for performance and notify the other party of the fact and make a verbal offer to receive it. However, even in this case, if the other party cooperates only, the other party shall complete the preparation to the extent that it can be actually performed, notify the other party of the fact, give notice of the other party's performance, and give notice of the other party's performance, but it can be said that the other party's performance will result in delay of performance, so it is insufficient

A. Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act: Articles 460 and 544 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Da944 delivered on July 2, 1986 (Gong1986,1093) 91Da2475 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992,1563) 92Da14724 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992,263) B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da5713 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong192,2396) 92Da36373 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong193,91) 92Da3111 delivered on December 24, 1992

Applicant

Respondent (Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 92Na693 delivered on November 13, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the respondent

In selling the instant real estate to the applicant on September 16, 198 at KRW 60,00,000, the court below recognized the fact that the respondent made an agreement to repay the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the said real estate to November 11, 197 and to cancel the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security established on the said real estate, and in light of the evidence relation (Article 4 of the real estate sales contract for the witness No. 3), the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the declaration of intent, such as the theory of the court below.

According to the records, it is recognized that the applicant alleged that he would deduct the amount of debt from the purchase price instead of taking over the collateral obligation of the right to collateral security from the application for provisional disposition of this case. However, even if the parties voluntarily stated facts unfavorable to himself, the confession does not take effect until the other party is invoked. Thus, the other party can withdraw his statement at any time before the other party is invoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Da944, Jul. 22, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 91Da24755, Apr. 14, 1992). According to the records, the applicant stated the application for provisional disposition on the date of the first hearing of the court of first instance. After the court below stated the applicant's legal representative on the date of the third hearing of April 15, 198, through a preparatory document stating that the respondent had cancelled the above collateral security obligation of this case until the payment date of the purchase price was made, and there was no violation of the law by the other party's statement and the 19th party's statement.

We cannot accept this issue because it is nothing more than criticizes the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

The court below rejected the allegation on this point by the claimant and the respondent on September 20, 1990, on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove that the claimant and the respondent have agreed to exempt the respondent from the obligations of the respondent that would cancel the registration of the establishment of the above collateral

According to relevant evidence and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law regarding the interpretation of expression of intent like the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In a bilateral contract in which both parties have a relationship of simultaneous performance, if one of the parties intends to rescind the contract on the ground of the other party's default, it shall first provide the other party's performance and give the other party a notice of performance within a reasonable period of time to cause delay of performance. Thus, if the other party's performance is required, the other party shall complete the preparation for performance and give the other party a notice of the completion of performance and make a verbal offer to receive it. However, even in this case, if the other party cooperates, the other party shall complete the preparation to the extent that it can be actually performed, give the other party a notice of the receipt and cooperation, and give the other party a notice of the other party's performance, but it can be said that the other party has a delay of performance. Thus, it is insufficient merely because the other party has a preparation for the performance of his own obligation. Thus, it is against the other party's precedent (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Da634, Nov. 24, 198; 92Da5713, Jul. 14, 192). 37

The court below rejected the respondent's assertion that the sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the respondent's declaration of contract termination as of March 9, 191 on the ground of the claimant's non-performance of obligation such as the remaining amount of the remainder of the purchase price. The respondent notified the applicant to pay the remainder of the purchase price, but there is no evidence to prove that the respondent had prepared the documents necessary for the cancellation of the above establishment registration and the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership of the real estate of this case at the time when the respondent notified the applicant to pay the remainder of the purchase price. In light of related evidence and records and the above legal principles, the above determination of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the rescission of the contract and the provision of performance or the good faith principle, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to support the argument.

4. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

If the facts are as determined by the court below, there is no error of law in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the judgment of the court below that the applicant required to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the respondent which became entitled to the contract of this case.

5. Therefore, the appeal by the respondent is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the respondent who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)