Whether or not receiving or expressing the other party's intention has reached an indication of intention

Article 111(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Na8377 Decided January 24, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The declaration of intention of the other party, such as the rescission of a contract, becomes effective when the other party reaches the other party (Article 111(1) of the Civil Act). Here, the arrival refers to the case where the other party is in an objective state where the other party is able to know the contents of the notification by social norms. As such, it does not require the other party to receive the notification or to know the contents of the notification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Meu439, Aug. 23, 1983). If the other party refuses to receive the notification without justifiable grounds, it shall be deemed that the declaration of intention becomes effective when the other party is in an objective state where the contents

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the defendant's declaration of termination on the ground of the plaintiff's refusal to pay the remainder of the contract of this case, after sending a content-certified mail containing the content that the defendant would cancel the contract of this case if the defendant did not perform the contract of this case to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff arrived at the plaintiff, but the plaintiff refused to receive the mail and failed to perform the contract.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the law regarding the rules of evidence.

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.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)