1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment citing the reasoning of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part determined by paragraph (2).

(except for the part related to the plaintiff). 2. Judgment on the defendant's argument

A. The Defendant asserted that most of the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land were prepared and urged the Plaintiff to receive them, thereby providing the Plaintiff with the obligation to pay the remainder amount and the obligation to register ownership transfer in the simultaneous performance relationship.

Even if the Plaintiff did not provide complete performance, even if he did not prepare for the payment of the remaining amount, and the Defendant was aware of the preparation for the receipt of the documents for the registration of ownership transfer, and the degree of provision for the Defendant’s performance is mitigated, and the Defendant could have issued a certificate of personal seal for the sale of real estate at any time, and thus, the Defendant presumed to have completed the obligation for the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the termination of the contract by the defendant due to the defendant's legitimate peremptory notice and the plaintiff's non-performance of obligation to pay the remainder should be deemed justifiable.

B. Whether the Defendant offered legitimate performance should, in principle, provide the buyer with a certificate of personal seal impression, registration right certificate, registration right certificate, seal imprint, power of attorney for registration, etc. necessary for the buyer to complete the registration of ownership transfer solely.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da4196 Decided June 15, 2007). However, in exceptional cases where a party’s performance of one party’s own obligation in a bilateral contract is strictly demanded, it may be said that a party would be able to make a mistake to the other party in bad faith. As such, the degree of offer to be made by one party may be reasonably determined so as not to violate the principle of trust and good faith depending on the time and specific circumstances.