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 assertion and judgment

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff sold to the Defendant on September 21, 2003 the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (the registration number at the time was “C,” but the changed registration was made on July 31, 2009 “D”, which was changed on July 31, 2009). The purchase price was substituted by the Plaintiff’s loan repayment amount of KRW 2 million against the Defendant on June 20, 2003. Accordingly, the Defendant can be recognized as having received the instant automobile from the Plaintiff on the aforementioned temporary light.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant motor vehicle from the plaintiff on September 21, 2003, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) first, the defendant, after receiving the instant automobile delivery on September 21, 2003, notified the plaintiff to deliver the documents for the registration of transfer of the instant automobile, but the plaintiff's above contract was cancelled due to delayed implementation of the above procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership.

In order to cancel a sales contract on the ground of delay of performance, it should be called a case where a considerable period of time has been set pursuant to Article 544 of the Civil Act and the performance has been not performed after the above peremptory notice period has been given. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant notified the plaintiff to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of the automobile of this case for a reasonable period of time. Thus, the defendant's above

Even if Defendant’s preparatory documents as of August 17, 2016 and preparatory documents as of December 23, 2012 are deemed to be a peremptory notice for implementation, insofar as Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the acceptance of the transfer registration procedure as of July 28, 2016, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff had already provided performance when the Defendant made a peremptory notice for such performance. Accordingly, Defendant’s above is the same.