205da 10011 Registration of transfer of ownership

김 ㅇㅇ (0ㅇ0-2000)

서울 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇ0동ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ0빌라 ㅇㅇ

Attorney Kim*

임ㅇㅇ(0ㅇ0-1000)

강원 ㅇㅇ군ㅇㅇ읍ㅇㅇ리 ㅇㅇㅇ

Attorney public-service advocate Kim*

June 13, 2007

July 25, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On July 21, 2005, the defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of right of recourse on the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 21, 2005, the Plaintiff determined the purchase price as KRW 247,00,000 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and the down payment of KRW 30,000,000 on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 90,000 on August 16, 2005; KRW 127,000,000 on September 6, 2005; the remaining payment of KRW 127,00,000 on September 6, 2005; and the delivery of the instant real estate to the Defendant by paying it to the Defendant at the same time as the documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership (other special agreement, deducting KRW 3,00,000 from the remainder of the real estate; KRW 00,000,000 on March 20, 2006, each of the instant contract was concluded with the Defendant (hereinafter “the intermediate payment”).

나. 그러던 중 , 피고는 이 사건 계약에서 정한 원래 잔대금 지급기일 다음날인 2005 . 9. 7. 원고가 잔대금을 지급하지 않고 있음을 이유로 들어 2005. 9. 12. 로 기한을 정하 여 그때까지 잔대금을 지급하라고 최고하는 취지의 내용증명우편을 이 사건 계약서류 에 적힌 원고의 주소지로 발송하였으나, 2005. 9. 8. 원고 본인의 직접적인 수취거절로 반송되었으며, 이에 피고가 다시 2005. 9. 12. 원고에게 2005. 9.19.까지 잔대금을 지 급하지 않는 경우 이 사건 계약이 당연히 해제된다는 뜻을 담아 보낸 내용증명우편 역 시 2005. 9. 14 . 원고의 전화를 통한 수취거절로 반송된 바 있다( 한편, 원고의 남편이 자 실제로 이 사건 계약을 주도한 장ㅇㅇ이 2005. 9. 9. 피고의 주거지에서 피고와 직 접 만난 적이 있는데, 원고의 주장에 따르면 피고에게 잔대금을 지급하려 하였지만 피 고가 이를 거절한 셈이 되고 , 반대로 피고의 주장은 원고가 잔대금을 제공하지도 않은 상태에서 다른 사람에게 전매하겠다는 말만 하여 서로 다투는 와중에 돌아갔다는 것 임).

다. 이러한 상황에서 피고는 2005. 9. 21. 위 내용증명우편에 적시한 잔대금의 최종지 급기한이 경과함으로써 이 사건 계약이 해제되었다는 전제하에 원고를 피공탁자로 삼 아 서울중앙지방법원 2005년 금제ㅇㅇㅇ 로 원고에게서 받은 매매대금 중 계약금을 제외한 중도금의 반환조로 90,000,000원을 공탁하였으며, 원고 역시 2005. 9. 28. 피고 를 피공탁자로 삼아 이 법원 2005년 금제ㅇㅇ 로 이 사건 계약에 따른 묘지이장비용 을 공제한 잔대금 명목의 124,000,000원을 공탁하였는데, 위 각 공탁통지는 그 무렵 상대방에게 도달하였다.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑1 내지 4호증, 을1호증의 1 . 2, 2호증의 각 기재, 증인 임 ㅇㅇ, 추ㅇㅇ의 각 증언 및 증인 조ㅇㅇ의 일부 증언 , 서울강남우체국장에 대한 각 사실조회결과 및 변론 전체의 취지

2. Determination;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that, upon mutual agreement, the payment period of the remaining amount originally agreed upon has been extended by three days, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to receive the remaining amount through several following cases. However, as long as the Defendant did not respond to the payment of the remaining amount on the ground of the Defendant’s refusal of receipt, the Defendant is liable to perform the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership to the instant real estate.

(2) As to this, the Defendant had already cancelled the instant contract on the ground that the Plaintiff had not paid the remainder before the Plaintiff deposited the remainder, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim did not appear to be a mother and unjust.

(3) Ultimately, the key issue of this case is whether the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded according to the defendant's expression of intent at the time of September 28, 2005 when the plaintiff deposited the remaining amount.

(b) the board;

(1) On the other hand, in the real estate sales contract, where the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller's obligation to deliver the certificate of transfer of ownership are concurrently performed (in this case, such obligation). In order to cancel the sales contract for the buyer to erase the seller's obligation to delay the performance, the buyer's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller's obligation to deliver the certificate of transfer of ownership is insufficient only to pay the remainder on the agreed date, and the seller has not paid the remainder on the agreed date. In addition, the seller has to prepare all documents necessary for the seller's application for transfer of ownership and notify the other party of the receipt of the intent. In addition, even if the buyer has notified the other party of the payment of the remainder within a reasonable period of time, the buyer's demand for the payment of the remainder on the other hand is too strict, so if the buyer does not receive the certificate of transfer of ownership as well as the seller's duty to provide the remainder on the other hand, the seller shall also be deemed to have prepared the performance on the principle of trust and good faith (see, 2. 19, 19.7.2.7.20.14.2.

(2) 돌이켜, 이 사건에서 원고와 피고가 합의하여 이 사건 계약상의 잔대금 지급기 한을 3일 연장하였다거나 잔대금을 공탁하기까지 원고의 남편인 장ㅇㅇ이 대리인 자격 으로 피고를 여러 차례 찾아가 '잔대금의 수령을 최고하였다' 는 점에 들어맞는 듯한 갑 5, 6호증의 각 기재와 증인 조ㅇㅇ의 일부 증언은 모두 믿기 어려우며, 오히려 위와 같 이 피고가 원고에게 잔대금의 지급을 최고하는 취지로 먼저 보낸 내용증명우편이 원고 본인의 직접적인 수취거절로 반송되었고( 그 이후에 보낸 내용증명우편 역시 전화를 통 한 수취거절로 반송된 바 있다), 원고는 계좌이체의 방식으로 중도금을 지급한 적이 있 었기에 피고가 수령을 거절하였다면 언제든지 이를 계좌이체하거나 불가피할 경우 미 리 공탁할 수도 있었을 터인데 그러하지 아니한 점 등으로 미루어 볼 때, 원고는 피고 가 잔대금을 지급하여 달라고 위 각 내용증명우편을 발송하였다는 사정을 충분히 인식 하면서도 미처 잔대금을 준비하지 못하여 피고의 해제권 행사를 회피할 목적에서 시간 을 끌다가 나중에서야 잔대금을 확보한 후 이를 공탁하기에 이른 것으로 짐작하기 어 렵지 않다.

Therefore, the defendant issued a certificate of personal seal impression to the plaintiff's attitude that he did not prepare for the receipt of the transfer registration document by leaving the behavior such as returning the content-certified mail as above. On the other hand, the defendant sent the remaining amount to a certified judicial scrivener at the same time with the receipt of the remaining amount and notified the plaintiff of the payment of the remaining amount. On the other hand, if he prepared the record and again asked the plaintiff to prepare the documents necessary for the act of filing an application for transfer registration of ownership at the same time with the receipt of the remaining amount, he provided the performance. The certificate of personal seal impression can be seen as being. (In order to obtain the certificate of personal seal impression, the certificate of personal seal impression must be stated. (The certificate of personal right can only be prepared by the defendant, and the document such as the power of attorney can be prepared with the seal imprint affixed on the paper, and in this case, the plaintiff did not pay the remaining amount on the ground that the defendant did not clearly notify the payment of the remaining amount as above.)

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 6, the defendant's issuance of a certificate of seal impression for real estate sale on September 14, 2005 can be recognized. Although the defendant sent each content-certified mail demanding the payment of the remaining amount at the time of issuance of the above certificate of seal impression, as long as such certificate of seal impression was prepared before September 19, 2005, which is the final payment deadline for the remaining amount designated in each content-certified letter, the defendant eventually met the performance peremptory notice and the premise requirement for the cancellation of the contract in this case.

Furthermore, in the intent of avoiding liability due to nonperformance, if the seller refuses to receive the content-certified mail sent by the seller who seeks to pay the remainder and thus the seller’s demand for performance is deemed not to be made, the seller reaches an unfair conclusion that the buyer cannot rescind the sales contract at any time or on the grounds of buyer’s default unless the buyer clearly expresses his/her intent to refuse performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15488, Sept. 19, 2005). Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant contract was rescinded upon the lapse of September 19, 2005, which is the final payment deadline for the remainder as stated in each of the above content-certified mail). Therefore, regardless of whether each of the contents-certified mail sent by the Defendant was returned to the Plaintiff’s refusal to receive the remainder, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was a lawful demand for

Furthermore, the declaration of intent to cancel a sales contract can be made by the buyer's deposit of the purchase-price received from the seller and the seller's notification of deposit to the seller. On September 21, 2005, the fact that the Defendant deposited part of the purchase-price received from the Plaintiff and the notice of deposit reached the Plaintiff around that time, taking into account the fact that the contract was terminated due to the Plaintiff's unpaid payment on September 21, 2005.

(3) Ultimately, in full view of all such circumstances, the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded at the time when the notice of deposit was delivered to the Plaintiff at the latest by the defendant's declaration of intent, which had been duly notified and provided while the plaintiff delayed the payment of the remaining amount (as seen above, although the plaintiff deposited the remaining amount with the defendant on September 28, 2005, it cannot be recognized as being effective since it was made after the defendant expressed his intent to rescind the contract of this case). The defendant's defense is reasonable, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion against this cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Kim Jong-il

(Attached Form)

List

1. 강원 ○○군 ㅇㅇ읍 ㅇㅇ리 ㅇㅇㅇ대 596㎡

2. 강원 ㅇㅇ군 ㅇㅇ읍 ㅇㅇ리 ㅇㅇㅇ과수원 3,808m

3. 강원 ㅇㅇ 군 ㅇㅇ읍 ㅇㅇ리 ㅇㅇㅇ 임야 5,829m

4. 강원 ㅇㅇ군 ㅇㅇ읍 ㅇㅇ리 ㅇ ㅇㅇ 상

Finally, 132 square meters of a single-story's house shall be 132 square meters.