beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Where one of the parties has expressed in a bilateral contract in which both parties has simultaneously performed an obligation, his/her intention not to perform his/her obligation in advance, the other party may rescind the contract without demanding the performance or offering the performance of his/her obligation not later than before such declaration of intention is lawfully withdrawn.
The issue of whether an obligor expressed his/her intent not to perform his/her obligation should be determined by examining the behavior of the parties in connection with the performance of the obligation and the specific circumstances before and after the contract. In order to recognize the nonperformance of obligation, an obvious expression of intent of the obligor not to perform the obligation should be deemed unlawful.
(1) The Defendants expressed their intent not to perform the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff on or after October 5, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Da1516, 1523, 88∑1029, 10036, and Supreme Court Decisions 90Da8374, Mar. 27, 1991; 2014Da22725, Feb. 12, 2015). The lower court determined that the Defendants’ refusal to perform the instant sales contract was unlawful, taking into account all the facts and circumstances indicated in its reasoning, including the content-certified mail sent by the Defendants around October 5, 2015, the outcome of the instant previous lawsuit, and the form of exercise of rights to the real estate after the instant sales contract, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants expressed their intent not to perform the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff on or after the date of refusal to perform the contract.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable.
Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations.