(a) Details of the duty to transfer ownership borne by the seller under the real estate sales contract;

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, whether the registration of the provisional disposition in violation of the provisional disposition, which was completed after the registration of the provisional disposition in violation, is a burden on the registration to be cancelled by the seller (affirmative)

(c) Whether a land transaction contract is effective without filing a report on the land located within the land transaction reporting zone (affirmative);

(d) Whether a declaration of termination is valid on the ground of default of the obligation for payment in the simultaneous performance relationship with the land transaction declaration certificate without offering the land transaction declaration certificate in a sale contract for the land located within the land transaction declaration zone (negative);

A. Where a real estate sales contract is concluded, the seller's obligation to transfer ownership and the buyer's obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase price are in the relationship of simultaneous performance, and in this case, the seller shall assume the duty to transfer ownership without any restriction or burden, unless there are special

B. Even after the provisional disposition registration for the prohibition of disposal of real estate was entered effective, the status of the provisional disposition obligee alone does not have the right to claim cancellation of the registration made after the provisional disposition is made, and the creditor of the provisional disposition can claim cancellation of the above registration in violation of the contents of the provisional disposition completed after the provisional disposition registration is made in favor of the merits. In addition, if the registered public official cannot ex officio cancel the registration for the violation of provisional disposition made after the provisional disposition registration, and if the registration for the violation of provisional disposition remains without cancellation at the time of transfer registration for ownership, it shall be deemed that

(c) unlike the absence of validity of a contract agreement concluded without obtaining permission from the competent authorities in a land transaction regulation zone, the validity of the contract is not denied even if the contract is concluded without filing a report on the land within the land transaction reporting zone.

D. According to the provisions of Article 40(1)4 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 5(2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate, and Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, a certificate of completion of report should be attached to the registration of ownership transfer for the land located within the land transaction reporting zone. Thus, the declaration of termination is invalid for reasons of non-performance of the obligation for payment in the simultaneous performance relationship with the

(a)(d)Article 568(a) of the Civil Code, Article 536(d) of the Civil Code, Article 714(c) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 21-7(d) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory. Article 544 of the Civil Code, Article 40(1)4 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 5(2) of the Act on Special Measures

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da6368 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991,2506) (Gong1991,2506). Supreme Court Decision 87Meu277 delivered on November 22, 198 (Gong1989,22) 90Da14218 delivered on February 12, 1991 (Gong191,977)

Attorney Shin Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant-Appellant’s Regular Rotation

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na19536 delivered on March 22, 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, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff did not pay a total of KRW 2.6 billion for the part of the intermediate payment and the remainder of the intermediate payment, and rejected the defendant's order to cancel the sales contract on August 8, 1989 on the ground that the plaintiff did not pay an intermediate payment on two occasions on the part of the defendant's August 8, 1989, and the defendant notified the payment of the intermediate payment and the payment of the intermediate payment and the defendant's ownership transfer registration obligation at the expiration of the payment period on the ground that the plaintiff did not express his intent to cancel the contract on the ground that the contract was made simultaneously. The court below rejected the decision to cancel the contract on November 17, 1990 on the ground that the defendant did not complete the documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership and notified the plaintiff of his intention to receive the part payment and the payment of the intermediate payment to the plaintiff on the ground that the contract was not made in the name of the plaintiff, and the contract was not made in the name of non-party 2.

As examined by the records, we affirm the above recognition and judgment of the court below on the remaining points except for the portion of non-existence of a registration certificate as seen below, and there is no error of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

2. A. In a case where a real estate sales contract has been concluded, the seller's obligation to transfer ownership and the buyer's obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase price are in the relationship of simultaneous performance. In this case, the seller bears a duty to transfer ownership without any restriction or burden, unless there are special circumstances.

In addition, even after the provisional disposition registration of prohibition on disposal of real estate was entered effective, the status of the provisional disposition obligee alone does not have the right to claim cancellation of the registration made after the provisional disposition is made, and the creditor of the provisional disposition can claim cancellation of the above registration in violation of the contents of the provisional disposition made after the provisional disposition registration is entered in favor of the principal case. In addition, if the registration officer cannot cancel the registration of provisional disposition made after the provisional disposition is made ex officio, and if the registration of provisional disposition violation remains without cancellation at the time of registration of transfer of ownership, it shall be deemed as the burden of registration to be cancelled. The same applies even if the registration of prohibition on disposal of provisional disposition did not borrow money from the right of collateral security, and at any time if the defendant

B. In addition, as pointed out in the theory that the validity of the land transaction contract is not denied even if the land transaction contract executed without obtaining permission from the competent authority in the land transaction regulation zone is concluded without filing a report on the land within the land transaction reporting zone (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu277, Nov. 22, 198; Supreme Court Decision 90Da14218, Feb. 12, 1991). However, according to the provisions of Article 40(1)4 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 5(2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate, Article 21-7 of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, a report completion certificate should be attached in registering the ownership of the land located within the land transaction reporting zone.

C. Therefore, the defendant did not take necessary procedures to cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the land of this case after the conclusion of the sale contract, and the declaration of the contract termination on the ground of the intermediate payment and the default of the obligation to pay the balance arising from the simultaneous performance without the provision of the certificate of land transaction completion shall not be effective. As pointed out in the theory of lawsuit that the application for a compulsory auction was withdrawn on February 21, 1991, this does not affect the validity of the contract termination as the date after the declaration of contract termination is declared. The court below rejected the defendant's rejection of the grounds for rejection of the contract termination objection on November 17, 1990, on the ground that there is no validity of the declaration of contract

3. Examining the records in comparison with Gap evidence No. 4-6, which was not rejected by the court below, the special agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the provisional registration of preservation for the right to claim the transfer of ownership at the time of the above sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on the condition that the provisional registration of preservation for the right to claim the transfer of ownership has been made, and the defendant requested the judicial secretary to report the contract of land, etc. required for provisional registration and provisional registration immediately after the sales contract was concluded, and where the provisional registration is not completed because the transaction transaction report certificate was not issued, the court below recognized that the plaintiff did not provide the registration certificate even if the plaintiff collected the registration certificate from the judicial secretary to keep it in custody so that the plaintiff did not dispose of the land of this case, and the registration certificate was actually provided. However, as seen above, the declaration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership at the time of the above sales contract was

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)