Rescission of a contract in a bilateral contract;

If one party to a bilateral contract causes a delay of performance of the other party, and intends to rescind the contract on such grounds, he/she shall perform his/her obligation or offer performance based on the principal place of obligation, and then demand the other party to perform the contract within a reasonable period and the offer of performance shall continue to exist.

Article 544 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da1110 Decided November 25, 1975 (Article 544(31)450 of the Civil Act; Article 544(31)450 of the Civil Act; Article 5477 of the court bulletin; Article 8768 of the court bulletin); 65Da164 and 1645 Decided October 5, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1597; Article 544(18) of the Civil Act, the summary of the decision, Article 544(18)46 of the Civil Act, Decided 30 October 30, 1952; Article 4285Da11110 of the Civil Act (Supreme Court Decision 4721; Decision 544(2)446 of the Civil Act, the summary of the decision)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court (78Gahap710)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 11,158,072 and the equivalent amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the day following the day when a copy of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant to the day of full payment, and deliver the real estate recorded in the attached list.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances and the declaration of provisional execution.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff operated a mentor manufacturing factory for ten years, the Plaintiff collected sand, etc. on the ground, and then sold the remaining real estate on October 19, 197, 150,000 won, excluding 129 square meters prior to Dong-dong, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and the sale price of which is KRW 8,790,000, and the down payment is 150,000,000 on the date of the above contract; the intermediate payment is 5,00,000,000 won; the remaining payment is 10,70,000,000,000 won for the above 10,000,0000 won for the above 10,000,000,000 won for each of the above 10,000,000 won for the above 10,07,0000 won for each of the above 10,07,07,000.

Since each of the above two contracts for sale and purchase of real estate is paid by the defendant to the non-party 2, the plaintiff's agent, at the end of May 1978, sought payment of remaining amount, such as the plaintiff's seal impression and seal impression, etc. necessary for the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the above real estate, but the defendant failed to pay the remaining amount to the defendant within June 7 of the same year, so the contract was not paid within the above period, and thus the contract was lawfully cancelled due to the defendant's delay of payment, the defendant should return the object of sale and purchase of real estate to the plaintiff, as well as the defendant's consent on the defendant's act of removal such as sand, etc. from the above sale and sale to the non-party 2, and therefore, the defendant's above act of removal such as sand has no legal grounds, so the defendant's above act of removal from the above sale and purchase of real estate can still return the remaining amount to the plaintiff 60 won by deducting the remaining amount from the plaintiff's purchase and sale price of 700 won.

Therefore, the plaintiff's remaining payment obligation of the plaintiff in the real estate sales contract two cases and the plaintiff's obligation to simultaneously implement the above real estate ownership transfer registration procedure is not disputed between the parties. In order to cancel a bilateral contract with the same simultaneous performance as this case, one party shall perform his own obligation, offer the other party to perform his obligation, and offer the other party to perform the contract within a reasonable period of time, and offer the other party to perform the contract shall continue to provide the above performance. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's remaining payment obligation of the above real estate was not valid until the end of May 1978 because the plaintiff provided the defendant with all documents such as the plaintiff's seal impression and certificate of the above real estate ownership transfer to the non-party 2 and the non-party 2's duty to perform the above real estate ownership transfer registration to the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 cannot be acknowledged as the plaintiff's remaining payment of the above real estate by the time of the plaintiff's assertion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the delivery of real estate and the return of unjust enrichment in this case, which is sought on the premise that the contract for the sale and purchase of this case was lawfully rescinded due to the defendant's delay of performance, shall be dismissed as it is no longer necessary to determine the remainder. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as it is just in conclusion with the party member and there is no ground for appeal of the plaintiff. Therefore,

Judges Lee Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)