(a) The meaning of a claim for performance that the contract shall be naturally rescinded if it is not performed within the prescribed period;

(b) methods of providing performance for the claimant to obtain the right of rescission on the ground of a delay in performance, where the performance indicated in the claim for performance is determined “within a given period” or “a given date and time”;

(a) a claim for performance that, if not performed within the prescribed period, the contract shall be naturally rescinded may be deemed to have expressed in advance the intention of rescission on the condition that the performance is not performed within that period at the time of the request for performance;

(b) In order to legally acquire the right of rescission lawfully by one of the parties having simultaneous performance relations, if the due date indicated in the claim for performance is determined as “within a certain period”, the claimant should, in principle, continue to provide performance during that period, and if the due date is determined such as “a certain date”, there must be a provision of performance on that date.

a.B.Article 544 of the Civil Code. Article 536 of the Civil Code

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 80Da2381 Decided April 14, 1981 (Gong1981, 1389). Supreme Court Decision 70Da1508 Decided September 29, 1970 (No 183Du128)

Plaintiff 1 and nine others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Attorney Lee Sung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na2763 delivered on June 4, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the letter of peremptory notice sent by the defendant to the plaintiffs and the non-party (Nos. 10-9, 10, 21-27), since the defendant is the person who entered into a new sales contract with the plaintiffs for the real estate of this case, the fact-finding of the court below as to this part is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as to this part, and the evidence Nos. 12, No. 14-16, and Nos. 18 through 20 shall be deemed to be a misunderstanding of evidence No. 10-12, No. 14-16, 18-20, and No. 18-20 shall be deemed to be a misunderstanding of evidence No. 10-12,

There is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

A request for performance, which includes the purport that a contract shall be rescinded as a matter of course within the prescribed period, may be deemed to have expressed in advance the intention of rescission on the condition that the contract is not performed within the prescribed period at the time of the request for performance. However, even in such case, in order to legally acquire the right of rescission for the other party's delay, if the performance period indicated in the request for performance is determined as "within a certain period," the claimant for the performance must continue to provide the performance during the prescribed period in principle, and if the period is determined as "a certain date" such as "a certain date," it is necessary to provide the performance on that date (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2381, Apr. 14, 1981).

2. In addition, in cases where the other party clearly expresses his/her intent not to perform his/her obligation even if he/she did not perform his/her obligation, such party may demand performance of his/her obligation to the other party even if he/she did not perform his/her obligation, and the contract may be rescinded on the ground of the other party's delay of performance. However, in this case, the defendant did not assert the cancellation of the contract on the ground of this case, and the court below did not have asserted the cancellation of the contract on the fifth date for pleading, and the preparatory documents of November 28, 191, which was stated at the court below's fifth date for pleading, were prepared to the extent that the defendant would have been able to provide performance on March 20, 190 and notified the plaintiffs of the preparation to the extent that the contract would have been lawfully rescinded even if the plaintiffs failed to pay the remaining amount and clearly expressed his/her intent not to perform his/her obligation, so the court below did not err in its judgment and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to pay the remaining amount.

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.