본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.08.12 2019나13322

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall receive 350,000,000 won from the plaintiff.


1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(Provided, That the judgment of the court of first instance is amended on February 20, 2018 to " December 20, 2018" 12 pages 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance. 2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) although the Plaintiff received a return from the Defendant as a part of the remainder, the Plaintiff would pay only KRW 450 million, not in full, which is KRW 450 million. This constitutes a case where the Plaintiff clearly expresses his intent not to pay any balance under a sales contract. Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to exercise the right of rescission immediately without any performance. Thus, the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded on January 15, 2019, and even if the unpaid balance is KRW 350 million, even if the unpaid balance is KRW 350 million, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder to the Defendant in full, since the registration of establishment of a mortgage was cancelled on July 18, 2017, including the obligor, D, the mortgagee, the maximum debt amount of KRW 130 million, the maximum debt amount of KRW 1300,000,000,000,0000,000.

B. Whether the contract termination by the defendant on the ground of the plaintiff's refusal of performance is legitimate or not, and in the case of the contract termination due to the so-called "non-performance", there is no need to provide for the performance of one's own obligation in the highest and simultaneous performance relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da9463, Sept. 14, 1992). Thus, the requirements for the contract termination are very alleviated when compared with the contract termination at the time of delay of performance, and therefore, there are many cases after the contract or the contract is made in addition to cases where the intention for refusal of performance is explicitly expressed.