The validity of a standardized contract in which the contract is deemed to have been automatically rescinded, if one of the parties has breached the contract for the bilateral contract.

Although the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the contract as a matter of course without requiring a separate notice of performance or a declaration of intention of rescission where one party’s default on the instant sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as long as the Plaintiff agreed to pay the remainder from the Defendant in return for the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration, which is one’s own debt, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the performance of his/her own obligation by first preparing documents for ownership transfer registration and delivering them to the Defendant on the date of payment of the remainder. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder was merely rescinded without the Defendant’s notice of performance.

Article 544 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da843 delivered on September 12, 1978

Plaintiff

Defendant

Cheongju District Court of the first instance (75Gahap78) Cheongju District Court

Supreme Court Decision 76Da2371 Delivered on June 28, 1977

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The litigation costs after an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

It is confirmed that the sales contract for one motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet signed on May 20, 1974 between the plaintiff and the defendant has been terminated. The judgment that the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

On May 20, 1974, the Plaintiff paid 1,380,000 won as down payment on the day between the Defendant and 1,380,000 won for one motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet owned by him, and 580,000 won for remainder payment on the same day, and the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract on June 15, 1974 by being paid in exchange for the transfer of ownership and the delivery and redemption of documents related to the said motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sale”). There is no dispute between the parties.

However, the plaintiff first agreed that the sales contract of this case shall be automatically rescinded due to the defendant's default on June 15, 1974, which is the due date for the remainder payment, even though the plaintiff prepared and prepared documents related to the registration of a seal imprint, etc. at his domicile at the address of the above date for the remainder payment, and even if the sales contract of this case was not automatically rescinded as above, the defendant sent a certificate of a seal imprint among the registration documents and tried to cancel the contract if the plaintiff fails to perform his obligation to pay the remainder by the next day, and thus, the defendant again concluded that the sales contract of this case was legally rescinded on July 3, 1974 in accordance with the above agreement despite the agreement to cancel the contract, and the defendant asserts that the sale contract of this case remains effective, and thus there is no obligation to claim confirmation of the seller's cancellation of ownership transfer (the obligation to claim for confirmation of ownership transfer).

Therefore, this case's sales contract was automatically cancelled on June 15, 1974, and according to the evidence Nos. 1 (sales Contract) without dispute, it can be seen that there is a substitute (Article 7) under which the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to consider the above contract as naturally cancelled, and the defendant's failure to pay the remainder to the plaintiff at the due date for the payment of the remainder, although the defendant did not pay the remainder to the plaintiff as above, it cannot be deemed that the sales contract was naturally cancelled in accordance with the above terms and conditions.

This is because, even if the plaintiff agreed that the contract will be terminated as a matter of course without requiring a separate notice or declaration of intention of rescission, the plaintiff will be paid the remainder from the defendant in accordance with the sale and purchase agreement. Thus, the plaintiff first failed to pay the remainder at the due date of the payment, unless the plaintiff first failed to pay the remainder at the due date of the payment of the ownership transfer registration document and issued it to the defendant for the performance of his own obligation. Thus, the defendant's failure to pay the remainder at the due date of the payment cannot be viewed as the failure of the obligation under the sale and purchase agreement. Thus, if the plaintiff was preparing for the registration of the transfer of ownership on the due date of the payment of the remainder, but it can be seen that the plaintiff failed to pay the remainder at the due date of the payment of the purchase and sale agreement, and the purport of argument as stated in Gap evidence No. 4 (Certification), which is presumed to have been presumed to have been established as a whole.

Then, the following facts are examined as to whether the contract was terminated on July 3, 1974; if the witness of the court below's testimony, and witness of the court below and the witness of the court prior to remand were to gather some testimony on July 2, 1974, which was after the above payment date, the fact that the plaintiff found the defendant as his domicile and agreed to receive the remaining amount from the next day. However, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff agreed to receive the remaining amount by the due date. However, if the plaintiff agreed to receive the payment by the due date until July 3, 1974, it is difficult to believe that the remaining amount was to be terminated, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it was to receive the remaining amount from the defendant until the due date, the defendant cannot be viewed as having presented the remaining amount to the plaintiff for a considerable period of 7 years, as long as there is no clear evidence that the plaintiff had received the transferred amount from the defendant about the transfer of ownership, and the defendant cannot be viewed as having presented the remaining amount to the plaintiff.

If so, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation is without merit under the premise that the contract for sale and purchase was lawfully rescinded, and thus, it shall be dismissed. However, since the original judgment is the same as the original judgment, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the losing party and so decided.

Judges Osungsung (Presiding Judge)