logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.06.26 2018나28183
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the following judgments to the reasoning of the court of first instance.

2. Article 544 of the Civil Act provides, “The other party may rescind a contract when one of the parties fails to perform his/her obligation within a reasonable period of time.”

In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, Article 6 of the sales contract of this case provides that "if a seller or a purchaser fails to fulfill the terms of this contract, the other party may notify in writing the defaulted person and cancel the contract."

Therefore, if the Defendant seeks to exercise the right to rescission on the sales contract of this case on the ground of the delay of the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder, it is necessary to give written notice to the Plaintiff prior to the declaration of intent of rescission pursuant to Article 6 of the sales contract of this case.

As seen earlier, the Defendant declared that the instant sales contract will be rescinded on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s outstanding balance over twice on April 11, 2017 and April 24, 2017.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant notified the plaintiff of the performance of the contract in writing before the defendant expresses his/her intent to cancel the contract.

Therefore, each expression of intention of rescission cannot be viewed as a legitimate exercise of the right of rescission.

In addition, in the situation where the defendant did not exercise his/her right of rescission as above, the plaintiff provided performance for the balance on April 19, 2017. Thus, the defendant's notification of cancellation on April 24, 2017 constitutes the notification of cancellation after the right of rescission is extinguished.

On April 24, 2017, the defendant's notice of cancellation on April 24, 2017 has no effect.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the Plaintiff’s claim.

arrow