Whether the provision of the performance of the obligation to perform the procedure of divisional registration can be seen as a provision of the divisional registration on the land cadastre.

With only dividing the land for sale into the land cadastre, it cannot be deemed that there was a seller's duty to perform the procedure of partition registration or a performance of the duty to perform the procedure of ownership transfer registration, or a provision of such performance.

Article 460 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 2

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na954 delivered on February 29, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below determined that the defendant's duty to cancel the sale and purchase contract was not imposed on the plaintiff on Nov. 20, 1978 and notified the cancellation of the sale and purchase contract to the plaintiff on Feb. 222, 1979 (the plaintiff did not complete the sale and purchase registration by subrogation of the defendant on Feb. 22, 1979, and completed the sale and purchase registration by subrogation of the plaintiff on Feb. 22, 1979, and the seller did not have the duty to cancel the sale and purchase registration by September 5, 1977, although the land in question was determined as the substitute lot by September 16, 1978 and the substitute lot registration was completed by September 27 of the same year, 1978. The court below acknowledged that the defendant did not have the duty to cancel the sale and purchase registration by subrogation of the plaintiff on Feb. 22, 1979.

However, in light of the evidence of the judgment below, the fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and the judgment of the court below cannot be determined that there is a violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and the judgment of the court below is just because the land was registered as divided on the land cadastre at the time when the defendant notified the cancellation of the purchase and sale of this case, and according to the statement of evidence No. 2-1 of the original decision, the defendant's duty of registration of division must be completed by September 5, 197, the remaining payment date of the plaintiff's duty of registration and the defendant's duty of registration of transfer of ownership (a sales contract) in this case between the plaintiff (Buyer) and the defendant (seller) and the defendant (a seller), the above duty of registration of division must be completed by September 5, 197, the remaining payment date of the plaintiff's duty of registration of division, and the defendant's duty of registration of transfer of ownership in this case cannot be deemed to have been provided at the same time. In addition, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of law as to

The issue is groundless.

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

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)