In the transactional relationship with respect to property rights, the obligation of the party

In the transaction of property rights, where it is evident in light of the empirical rule that one party has a duty to notify in advance the other party of such circumstances in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith that if the other party entered into the transactional relationship without notifying the other party of the fact that the transactional relation or the performance of obligations may cause any obstacle to the other party, and that the other party would not be able to secure obligations under the contract, without notifying the other party of the fact that the transaction would result in the effect of the transactional relation or the performance of obligations under the contract, or the other party would not receive any property or benefits from the other party, or would not receive any notification of such circumstances, if the other party would have received any notification of such circumstances, or would not receive any property, etc. by continuing the transactional relation, the other party shall be subject to the obligation to notify the other party of such circumstances, and the failure of notification

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Young-hoon

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No1847 delivered on March 9, 1984

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

In the transaction of property rights, one party does not notify the other party of any matter related to such transaction, and thus, it is likely that the effect of the transactional relationship or the performance of obligations under contract might not be ensured, without notifying the other party of such fact, or receiving economic benefits from the other party by impliedizing such condition, and the other party does not receive notification of such circumstance, if he would have received notification of the fact, he shall be obligated to notify the other party of such fact in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith. If it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the other party would not receive delivery of property or continuing to do so if he would have received notification of such circumstance, he shall be obliged to notify the other party of the fact that he would not be notified of such fact, and even if he did not so, he would have deceiving the other party, thereby constituting fraud, or if he would not affect the realization of rights of the other party, he shall not be obliged to notify the other party of the provisional disposition that he would have received the above provisional disposition, which was issued by the administrator of the company under the above order to preserve the new company reorganization procedure.

However, Article 103 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act provides that "if a company and the other party have not yet completed the performance of bilateral contracts at the time of the commencement of reorganization proceedings, the receiver may rescind or terminate the contract, perform the company's obligation, and request the other party to perform the other party's obligation"; however, Article 58 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act provides that "the provisional registration made after the commencement of reorganization proceedings as a cause for registration created before the commencement of reorganization proceedings is commenced, shall not assert its effect in relation to the reorganization proceedings. However, this provision shall not apply to a provisional registration made under Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act without the registration holder's knowledge of the commencement of reorganization proceedings." Thus, a provisional registration made pursuant to Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act before the commencement of reorganization proceedings as a cause for registration prior to the commencement of reorganization proceedings may claim its effect in relation to the reorganization proceedings, and the provisional registration holder may claim its principal registration to the administrator of the reorganization company for the bilateral contract for which such provisional registration has been completed."

As indicated in its reasoning, even if the Defendant entered into a contract for the sale of real estate as indicated in the judgment of the court below as to this case, and received the down payment and intermediate payment as to this case, according to the above contract for the land between the above company and the non-party to this case, the above contract for the sale and purchase was entered into, and the seller entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of the land between the parties to this case and the non-party to this case, and there was a special agreement that the seller shall immediately write the provisional registration for the execution of the contract for the provisional registration of the buyer in the future. The above contract for the commencement of reorganization was decided before September 27, 1978 and the non-party's provisional registration for the preservation of the non-party's right to claim the commencement of reorganization as to the above real estate before receiving the application for the commencement of reorganization order as well as the above June 12, 1978. Thus, as long as the Defendant entered a provisional registration at the same time with a special agreement and received the above application for reorganization order from the other party, it did not affect the buyer's procedure and validity of the above contract.

Therefore, the court below should have judged whether or not the above special agreement or provisional registration prior to the decision of commencement of corporate reorganization was made with respect to the sale and purchase real estate of this case, but it did not reach such determination, and it is found that the above sales contract was acquired by deceit without hiding the duty of disclosure under the premise that it cannot be cancelled under Article 103 (1) of the above Act, which is that the above sales contract cannot be cancelled under the above provision, was unlawful in the incomplete hearing, and that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the duty of disclosure and the legal principles of Articles 103 (1) and 58 (1) of the above Act in the context of fraud. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that there is no need to determine other grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)