Whether it is legitimate for a seller to have prepared a certificate of personal seal impression different from that of the registry as the seller's performance.

The extent to which the seller of real estate has offered performance is obliged to prepare all documents necessary for the registration procedure to the extent that it can provide real estate at any time, and the certificate of personal seal impression among the documents must be prepared. The address of the certificate of personal seal impression should be the same as that on the registry of real estate. If there are different points among them, the provision of performance can not be legitimate even if it is not attributable to the seller's cause attributable to the seller.

Article 544 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Defendant Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na763 delivered on September 28, 1979

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

First, we examine the Plaintiffs’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1.

In a real estate sales contract in which the buyer's obligation to pay the purchase price and the seller's obligation to pay the purchase price are simultaneously performed, in order for the seller to cancel the contract by putting the buyer into delay of performance, the seller must first provide performance for his/her obligation, and the degree of such offer must prepare all documents necessary for registration procedures to the extent that it can be offered at any time. The certificate of personal seal impression among the documents must be the same as that on the register of real estate. If there are different points among them, the offer of performance cannot be legitimate even if it is not attributable to the seller's cause attributable to the seller.

In this case, on June 16, 1978, the court below held that the defendant sold the share of the real estate in this case to the deceased non-party who is the deceased non-party who is the deceased of the plaintiffs, and received the down payment and intermediate payment on the same day, and provided performance of registration documents related to the simultaneous performance on the 24th of the same month, which is the remaining payment date of the contract, but notified the above non-party to perform his obligation to pay the contract by July 4 of the same year. The above non-party did not perform his obligation to pay the contract, and the defendant's address on the certificate of personal seal impression was declared on the 9th of the same month, and the above registration documents provided by the defendant were different from that on the register of real estate, but this cannot be seen as the defendant's disadvantage. Thus, the above contract cannot be ruled that the above declaration of intention to cancel the contract reached the above non-party's legitimate performance and thus, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim for the delayed performance of the contract.

It is reasonable to discuss this point.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit to determine the remaining grounds of appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)