Period for exercising the right to complete sale reservation

The right to make the sale effective by expressing the other party's resolution on the completion of the sale in the unilateral promise for the sale as stipulated in Article 564 of the Civil Act shall be extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period even where the other party has received the delivery of real estate which is the object of the promise, if it is a kind of creation right and the exercise period has been agreed between the parties, within such period, and if it is not agreed upon, within 10 years from the time of establishment of the promise, it shall be exercised within the said period, and if such period has elapsed, the right

Article 564 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1 and 6 Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant from among the Sulphal Pulpha

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na19014, 19021 (Counterclaim) decided November 5, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the first and second points:

The right to make the sale effective by expressing the other party's resolution on the completion of the sale in the unilateral promise of the sale stipulated in Article 564 of the Civil Code shall be extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period even where the other party is delivered real estate which is the object of the promise, if the period for the exercise has been agreed between the parties as a kind of creation right, and if there is no such agreement, it shall be exercised within 10 years from the establishment of the promise, and if the above period has elapsed, the right to the completion of the promise shall be extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period.

In the above purport, the court below legitimately confirmed that ten years have passed from the time of the conclusion of the pre-sale agreement with respect to the forest of this case, until the time of the pre-sale agreement, and rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's exercise of the pre-sale right is not effective as the premise of the right extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period without examining whether the defendant occupies the forest of this case. In light of the records, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the termination of the pre-sale right as pointed out.

The precedent is not appropriate in this case.

All arguments are without merit.

With respect to the third point:

The assertion eventually can be seen as continuing the situation where the Nonparty or the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who is the contractor or his heir, has the right to complete the purchase and sale of the forest of this case after the Defendant entered into the pre-sale agreement, and thereby recognizing the Defendant as having the right to complete the purchase and sale agreement. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the right to complete the sale agreement of this case has been interrupted, but it is obvious that no assertion was made up until the original judgment, and as long as the right to complete the purchase and sale agreement is the right required for the exclusion period, the interruption

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 Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)