The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is an error of law as to the effective date of declaration of intention.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is an error of law as to the effective date of declaration of intention.

Article 111(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Kim J-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na1539 delivered on April 20, 198

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

Even though the plaintiff was in prison at the time of filing the lawsuit of this case, it cannot be readily concluded that the lawsuit of this case was an improper lawsuit without the plaintiff's intention. Therefore, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by neglecting the judgment of the judgment of the court below as to the allegation of absence of power of representation.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In light of the records, we find that the court below's decision that the defendant did not perform the obligation to pay the intermediate payment of the sales contract of this case and the remainder payment to the plaintiff, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the incomplete deliberation and the violation of the rules of evidence.

3. We examine the ground of appeal No. 3.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the defendant did not perform his obligation to pay the intermediate payment and the remainder of the sales contract of this case, the court below notified the defendant on August 1, 1983 that the plaintiff would be deemed to have terminated the above sales contract if he did not perform the payment by the 10th day of the same month. However, the defendant did not perform the payment by the above date, and thus the above sales contract was cancelled.

However, according to the evidence No. 3 (Peremptory Notice), the plaintiff's notification of performance and cancellation of contract on August 1, 1983 was acknowledged to have been sent by mail with the defendant's address 35-576, Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong 35-576, as the court below made a lawful decision on the completion of appeal, and the defendant was living on August 31, 1983 after he moved to 111-6, Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong 270. Thus, when the plaintiff sent the above notice of performance and cancellation of contract, it is clear that the defendant could not receive it.

Therefore, even though it is clear that the plaintiff's declaration of the highest order of performance and the declaration of the termination of contract will not take effect because it did not reach the defendant, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

4. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)