(a) Whether a sales contract is valid where a land transaction permit was concluded on the premise that it was granted and permission was obtained thereafter (affirmative) and that the transaction price stated in the application for permission is lower than the actual market price;

(b) Requirements for a seller to cancel a contract at a sales contract concluded on a premise of land transaction permission for the buyer’s delay of performance;

C. Whether the termination of a contract takes effect only by the notification of cancellation when the seller pays a double the down payment and intends to cancel the contract (negative)

A. Although a sales contract was not obtained when it was concluded, the contract was concluded on the premise of the above permission, and it was thereafter permitted. Even if the transaction price stated in the application for permission is lower than the actual transaction price, the permission itself cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course. Thus, the above sales contract is valid.

B. In the case of a sale and purchase contract under the premise of land transaction permission, a buyer has no obligation to pay the purchase price pursuant to the terms and conditions of the contract before the permission is granted. Thus, even if a seller offered a document required for the registration of transfer of ownership before the survey, the buyer is not liable for delay of performance, but can cancel the contract only when the buyer gives a notice to pay the purchase price after the permission was granted and the buyer fails to comply with it.

C. Before the buyer commences the performance of the contract, the seller may reimburse the amount of the down payment and cancel the contract. However, the cancellation becomes effective immediately by notification, and later, the buyer may not refund the double amount of the down payment received by the seller to the buyer or at least cancel the contract unless the seller provides the performance.

(a)Article 21ter(1) and (7)/B of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory; Article 544(c) of the Civil Code; Article 565 of the Civil Code;

A.B. Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,642)/A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da8121 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong1991,462) 90Da11493 delivered on February 26, 1991 (Gong1991,1075)/C. Supreme Court Decision 78Da1468 delivered on September 26, 1978, 80Da2784 delivered on October 27, 1981 (Gong1981,1496).

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 91Na1705 delivered on August 21, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on July 20, 1990, the court below concluded a sale and purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to purchase 38,500,000 won for each of the real estate of this case, which is owned by the defendant, on the premise that the land transaction permission was granted on July 20, 1990, and paid 4,500,000 won as the down payment on the day, and agreed to pay 33,500,000 won for the remainder as necessary documents and redemption for the registration of the transfer of ownership until August 7, 1990, the land transaction permission was set as the remaining payment date for convenience, and accordingly, the plaintiff paid 4,50,000 won to the defendant as the down payment date, and then the plaintiff refused to obtain the remaining payment on the ground that the plaintiff would have agreed upon the plaintiff and the defendant to purchase 19,826,000 won for the said real estate as the down payment date, and then the plaintiff was required to pay the remainder as 80.

2. According to the facts established by the court below, although the above contract was not obtained at the time of conclusion, the contract was concluded on the premise of the above permission, and as long as the above permission was obtained thereafter, the contract shall be valid, and even if the transaction price stated in the application for permission is lower than the actual transaction price, the above contract shall not be deemed null and void as a matter of course. Therefore, the judgment below to the same effect shall be justified and without merit.

3. In the above sales contract, the court below rejected the claim that the defendant notified the termination of the contract and lawfully rescinded the contract on August 8 of the next day because the plaintiff agreed that the plaintiff may immediately rescind the contract without a peremptory notice if there is a delay in the performance of the other party's contract, and the plaintiff did not pay the balance on the payment date of the above balance, and then rejected the above disposition on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the above agreement as to the defendant's assertion that the contract had been lawfully rescinded. In light of the records, the above disposition is just and acceptable, and in the case of a sales contract based on a premise of permission, the buyer does not have the obligation to pay the price pursuant to the terms of the contract before the permission was granted (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da12243 delivered on December 24, 191). Thus, even if the seller provided the documents required for the registration of ownership transfer before the purchase, it is not attributable to the delay in performance, and it is not reasonable to discuss that the buyer can cancel the contract due to delay in performance.

4. The theory that the seller may refund the down payment and cancel the contract before the buyer commences the performance of the contract. However, this cancellation becomes effective immediately by notification, and it is not only by the obligation of repayment of the down payment last, but also by the seller's obligation of repayment of the down payment. Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles, and therefore, the conclusion of the decision is without merit.

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)