The case holding that the buyer cannot be deemed to have made clear that the buyer had no intent to perform his/her obligation merely because the performance of the ownership transfer registration was sought, even if a part of the purchase price was fully paid.

The case holding that the buyer cannot be deemed to have clearly made it clear that the buyer does not have any intent to perform his/her obligation, merely by demanding the implementation of the ownership transfer registration, even if part of the purchase price remains.

Article 544 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Meu19906 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 2390) 91Da6368 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 2505) 91Da25369 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong191, 2714)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na13474 delivered on January 22, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant violated the above special agreement on the method of paying the real estate of this case purchased from the defendant in connection with insurance coverage by the non-party International Fire Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "insurance company"), and decided to accept the plaintiff's payment of the loan amounting to KRW 150,00,00,00 from the insurance company, and decided to pay interest on behalf of the plaintiff among the loan amounting to KRW 75,00,00,00, and did not accept the above special agreement, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of the contract of this case's immediate cancellation of the contract of this case's interest and the cancellation of the contract's expiration payment, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as stated in the judgment below that the plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay interest on the above 150,000,000,000 won to the plaintiff for an insurance company's non-performance of interest payment.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning as to the defendant's defense that the plaintiff had cancelled his intention to cancel the sales contract of this case by delivery of content certification, reply, preparation documents, etc., on the premise that the plaintiff had already been paid in full, despite the existence of 17,637,027 won or remaining at the time of the above special agreement, and that the plaintiff had not expressed his intention to cancel the sales contract of this case. In light of the complex circumstances as stated in the judgment on the payment of the purchase price of this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's performance of the 75,000,000 won obligation performed by the plaintiff as to the 75,000 won obligation of this case, which was performed by the plaintiff, on the premise that the plaintiff had already been paid in full due to a difference in the calculation process of the purchase price of this case, or provided the defendant with the above content certification or ownership transfer registration, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff did not have any errors in the plaintiff's intent to cancel the above obligation of this case by providing it.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)