(a) The case holding that the seller of real estate shall not be deemed to have expressed his intention not to perform his obligation to pay the remainder of the sale in advance;

(b) Where a buyer deposits part of an intermediate payment and any balance lawfully, whether the seller may rescind the contract by reason of the refund of the down payment (negative)

(c) Whether the purchaser of the real estate on which the right to collateral security has been established has a deposit made in order to discharge the secured obligation (affirmative)

(d) Whether the loss of the seller, who was forfeited the down payment, due to the buyer’s failure to receive the payment of the purchase price from a third party on the agreed date, constitutes a loss due to special circumstances (affirmative)

A. It cannot be deemed that the purchaser of a real estate expressed his/her intention not to perform the obligation to pay the remainder of a sales contract in advance, on the ground that he/she filed a lawsuit claiming the transfer of ownership under a condition without seeking the fulfillment of his/her obligation, while he/she filed a lawsuit claiming the transfer of ownership with the remainder after deducting the secured obligation and the obligation of provisional seizure on the real estate.

(b) Where a buyer deposits part of an intermediate payment and any balance lawfully, the declaration of intention of cancellation made by reason of the seller’s repayment of the down payment shall be null and void after the other party has already commenced the performance thereof.

(c) Since a purchaser of the real estate on which the right to collateral security has been established has a legitimate interest in repaying the secured obligation, the deposit for the repayment of such obligation is justifiable.

D. Even if a seller, as a result of failure to receive the purchase price from a third party on the agreed date, incurred loss due to forfeiture of the down payment due to a failure to purchase real estate from a third party and pay the remaining price, this is a special circumstance, and thus, is liable to compensate for such loss only if the purchaser knew or could have known

A. Article 544 of the Civil Act: Article 565 of the Civil Act; Article 481 of the Civil Act; Article 393(2) of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da6368 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 2505). Supreme Court Decision 70Da105 delivered on April 28, 1970 (No. 185 delivered on July 27, 1975) 76Da509 delivered on July 27, 1976 (No. 71Da1888, 1889 delivered on October 22, 197) (No. 80Da130 delivered on May 13, 1980)

Plaintiff

Defendant Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 89Na7183 delivered on June 19, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are also examined as follows. (1), (2), and (3).

In light of the records, the court below's decision which rejected all the defendant's assertion that the sales contract of this case between the plaintiffs and the defendant is against good morals and other social order, and is remarkably unfair due to the defendant's old-age, rashness, or inexperience, or is not so, by deceiving the plaintiff. In addition, if the seller violates the sales contract of this case, the sales contract of this case refers to the amount double the down payment to the purchaser, and if the purchaser violates the contract, the buyer gives up the down payment and the contract is to cancel the contract, if the purchaser fails to pay it at the time of the payment of the intermediate payment separately, the contract is automatically cancelled, and there is no evidence that there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation. The arguments are without merit.

The grounds of appeal (4) and (5) are also examined.

If one party in a bilateral contract fails to perform his/her obligation within a reasonable period of time, the other party may rescind the bilateral contract if he/she has given notice of performance within the reasonable period of time and the debtor has expressed his/her intention not to perform the obligation to pay part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of the sales contract of this case. There is no error in violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit by the court below, that there is no evidence that the plaintiff clearly stated that the plaintiff does not perform his/her obligation to pay part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of part of the sales contract of this case. The plaintiff deposited only the remainder after deducting the secured obligation of part of part of part of part of part of part of part

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no evidence suggesting that there was a special agreement that the defendant may rescind the contract immediately without demanding the payment of the intermediate payment, if the intermediate payment is not paid at the time of the payment

The grounds of appeal No. 6 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, although the defendant provided the plaintiffs with an amount of KRW 34,00,000, which is a part of the down payment, it refused to accept the contract of this case, it was not possible to accept the plaintiffs' claim on October 7, 1989, since the contract of this case was terminated on the same day and the seller cannot accept the plaintiffs' claim, the period during which the contract can be cancelled in return for the double payment shall be limited to the time until the other party commences an act of performance, such as the provision of part payments, etc., and since the plaintiffs paid the defendant the down payment of KRW 18,380,00 in the remainder of July 14, 198 and the defendant paid the down payment of KRW 23,000 to the defendant lawfully on the part of the part payment, the expression of intent to cancel the contract of this case on the grounds of the defendant's repayment of the down payment was made after the plaintiffs had already commenced the performance.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and they are not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements and effect of deposit such as the theory of lawsuit and the cancellation of contract.

The grounds of appeal (7) and (8) are also examined.

According to the records, the plaintiffs have a legitimate interest in repaying the secured obligation of the right to collateral security established on the real estate of this case as the purchaser, and the deposit for the repayment of such obligation is justifiable, and as a result of the defendant's failure to receive the purchase price of this case from the plaintiffs on the agreed date, even if the defendant suffered losses by the defendant due to forfeiture of the down payment amount of KRW 7,60,000 due to the purchase of the land and buildings owned by them and the payment of the remainder money was not made from the non-party, it shall not be held liable for the plaintiffs since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs knew or could have known it as special damages, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid 9,000 won in collection of the check that he received as the down payment from the plaintiffs as the down payment, and there is no violation

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)