If the buyer does not cooperate in the performance of the contract, the extent of the seller's provision of performance.

If a party to a bilateral contract strictly demands the performance of one party's own obligation in the bilateral contract, the degree of offer to be made by the other party would rather be against the principle of trust and good faith, depending on the time and specific circumstances. If the buyer fails to prepare for the receipt of documents for registration of transfer of ownership, such as failure to pay the balance when he/she performs the contract, he/she shall be sufficient for the seller to prepare for performance corresponding thereto. Accordingly, if the seller prepares and provides most documents necessary for registration of transfer of ownership to the office of a certified judicial scrivener and delivers them at the time of payment of the balance, he/she shall be deemed to have completed the provision of sufficient performance for registration of transfer of ownership, even if some incomplete documents are issued by the seller at any time, and the buyer who fails to receive documents for registration of transfer of ownership, such as failing to pay the balance on the date of payment of the balance, may not refuse the payment of the balance on this ground.

Articles 460 and 536(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da5713 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2396) Supreme Court Decision 92Da36373 delivered on November 10, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 91) Supreme Court Decision 95Da40397 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 507)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Incheon, Attorneys Choi Jae-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Hank, Attorneys Lee Dai-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na41150 delivered on May 3, 2001

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the argument on the cancellation of contract

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiffs sold the real estate of this case to the defendants on November 28, 1997 and received 400 million won in total as contract deposit and intermediate payment until December 23, 1997, including that the plaintiffs sold the real estate of this case to 90 million won on the date of the contract, and received 20 million won as contract deposit and intermediate payment. "If the defendants fail to sell bathing buildings owned by the defendants at the time of the contract of this case in consideration of the circumstances where the sale of bathing buildings is able to pay the purchase price of the real estate of this case, they agreed that the defendants may cancel the contract of this case." The witness's testimony corresponding to the judgment of the court below is not trusted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and further, the court below's decision that the defendants refused the right to cancel the contract of this case to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 as well as the defendant's allegation that the defendants paid the remainder of the contract of this case to the witness 100 billion won.

In addition, when the court below rejected the evidence consistent with the contract termination reservation agreement, it is clear that the part of the rejection evidence, which is the non-party 1, of the non-party 1, is the witness of the trial court, in light of the reasoning of the court below, and therefore, even if there are such errors in writing as above, the court below did not err in misconception of facts against the rules of evidence in the judgment below.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

2. As to the simultaneous performance argument

If a party to a bilateral contract strictly demands the performance of one party's own obligation, the degree of offer to be made by the party may be determined reasonably as not contrary to the principle of trust and good faith depending on the time and specific circumstances. Therefore, in cases where the purchaser fails to prepare to receive documents for registration of transfer of ownership, such as failure to pay the balance when he/she takes a non-cooperative attitude in performing the contract, the seller shall also have prepared to perform the corresponding performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da36373, Nov. 10, 1992; 95Da40397, Dec. 22, 1995).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' defense of simultaneous performance that the defendants are unable to pay the remaining amount because they failed to perform their duty of registration of ownership transfer because they were prepared and provided most documents necessary for registration of ownership transfer to a certified judicial scrivener office, and some of them were delivered at any time by the plaintiffs. Considering that some of them were incomplete documents, even if they were issued and delivered, they shall be deemed to have completed the duty of registration of ownership transfer, they shall be deemed to have completed the provision of sufficient performance as to the duty of registration of ownership transfer, and the defendants who did not cooperate in the performance of the contract, such as disputing the validity of the contract without payment at the due date and did not prepare the documents for the registration of ownership transfer registration of the plaintiffs. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding and determination are acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding legal principles as to concurrent performance, as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)