(a) Requirements for cancelling a seller's delayed liability for a buyer in a real estate sales contract;

B. In the case of the above “A”, the extent of a seller’s provision of performance necessary for the cancellation of a sales contract

(c) The case holding that the seller fulfilled his duty necessary to cancel the sales contract;

A. In a real estate sales contract which is a bilateral contract, the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller's duty to deliver documents for transfer of ownership are concurrently performed. In such cases, in order for the seller to erase the seller's liability for delay, the fact that the buyer has not paid the remainder on the due date is insufficient. In principle, it is necessary to prepare all documents necessary for the seller's application for transfer of ownership and provide them by notifying the other party of the fact that the seller has notified the other party of the receipt of the fact that the seller has failed to comply with the request, and all documents necessary for the seller's application for transfer of ownership are required to provide for registration such as the certificate of registration right, power of attorney and certificate of personal seal impression.

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, regardless of whether the buyer prepares or provides the remainder, the seller is not obligated to complete the required documents to the extent that it is possible to file an application for ownership transfer registration in a uniform manner and to provide the buyer with the actual condition. The buyer may refuse to pay the remainder when the seller fails to provide the remainder after preparing all such documents. If the buyer refuses to pay the remainder for the same reason, the buyer may not immediately omit the buyer on the ground of such reason. However, if the buyer does not prepare to receive the registration of ownership transfer at the same time without preparing the purchase price and does not prepare to receive the registration of transfer, the seller shall obtain a certificate of personal seal for real estate sale. The seller shall prepare the seal imprint or registration certificate and shall prepare the seal imprint or registration certificate so that the certified judicial scrivener can prepare the documents necessary for filing an application for ownership transfer registration at the same time with the certified judicial scrivener, etc., and in this case, the above documents shall be deemed sufficient by holding his own house.

(c) The case holding that the seller fulfilled his duty necessary to cancel the sales contract;

Articles 544 and 460 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1379 delivered on September 8, 1987 (Gong1987,1553) (Gong1983 delivered on November 13, 1990) (Gong1991,88) 90Da8343 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong191,2134)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 3, Pacific Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-su et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na28315 delivered on December 27, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

1. The gist of the facts found by the court below is as follows.

A. On June 27, 1983, the defendant entered into a contract with the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party") on the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party") to sell the land of this case ( Address 1 omitted) and 1,427 square meters before the land of this case ( Address 1 omitted) and the 3392m2 adjacent thereto ( Address 2 omitted), 101 square meters in the same Ri ( Address 3 omitted), 119 square meters in the same Ri ( Address 3 omitted), 6,500,000 won in total, as of the date of the contract, and the intermediate payment of 30,500,000 won in the same year to the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party"), each of which shall be paid in August 30, 200 each of the above years.

B. The Nonparty paid only KRW 2,00,000, which is a part of the down payment per contract date. The Nonparty paid only KRW 53,500,000, including the down payment from the above purchase price, until October of the same year, in such a way that he frequently pays part of the intermediate payment under the above contract and the remainder payment due to circumstances, disregarding the above payment date. The Nonparty paid only KRW 53,50,000, including the down payment from the above purchase price, until October of the same year. The Nonparty, on October of the same year, had been in existence of KRW 13,00,000 from the above purchase price, made a request for the registration of ownership transfer by taking into account the large amount of 13,00,000,000 for the remainder after finding the Defendant and the remaining remaining 13,000,000,0000 from the above 4 land and the house on the ground only after the registration of ownership transfer, and then made a request for the registration of ownership transfer by the remaining 3,00%.

C. The Defendant accepted the Nonparty’s request and agreed to first register the ownership transfer of the remaining three parcels of land except the instant land and the above (location 2 omitted), but instead, even after the said transfer registration was made, the Defendant, while preparing a house on the farm site to be newly created by the Defendant, agreed that the above (location 3 omitted) ground house, which the Defendant had resided in the said three parcels of land, will continue to reside in the said three parcels of land on a reasonable basis, and the deposit amount for the lease shall be KRW 3,000,000 and the Nonparty shall be deducted from the remaining remaining amount to be paid to the Defendant by the Defendant.

D. Meanwhile, in order to secure his debt for the loan to the Plaintiff, the Nonparty agreed to transfer the ownership of the instant land and the said land and the said land to the Plaintiff in order to secure his debt for the loan to the Plaintiff. In October of the same year, the Nonparty: (a) During the payment period of KRW 10,00,000 for the purchase and sale contract as of April 15, 1984 and the above ( Address 3 omitted) above was signed by the Defendant, the buyer, and the seller at the time of the purchase and sale contract as of September 5, 1983 and the above ( Address 3 omitted) above, to the Defendant for the rent of KRW 10,000,000 for the above land and the above (No. 10,000,000 for the remainder to the Defendant; and (b) on the other hand, the Nonparty’s request for the registration of ownership transfer was accepted and sealed under the Nonparty’s name, and thus, (c) the Nonparty’s request for the above payment period was rejected 3.

E. The Defendant only paid only part of the interest agreed upon after April 15, 1984, which was the date of the payment for the remainder of the newly agreed contract by the Nonparty, and 10,000,000 won remaining after deducting the deposit for the lease deposit of KRW 3,00,000,000, was a director of a newly created farm around A around 1984 without paying the remainder amount.

F. On February 4, 1986, the Defendant issued a certificate of the personal seal impression for real estate sale with the purchaser as the Plaintiff on February 6, 198 of the same year, and sent a written notice to the Nonparty on February 28, 1986 that if the agreement was not paid by February 28, 1986, the Nonparty would dispose of the land of this case at will. The Nonparty asserted that the remaining amount of the remainder is KRW 8,018,000. By May 30 of the same year, the Defendant sent a provisional registration established on the land of this case (at that time, the provisional registration was not established on the land of this case, but on August 21, 1982, the Seoul Livestock Industry Cooperatives and the Defendant as the debtor, sent the written reply to the Nonparty to the Nonparty on February 28, 1986. Meanwhile, the Nonparty sent the written reply to the effect that the remaining amount of the land of this case would be KRW 9,500,000,000 to the Defendant 208.

G. On the 27th of the same month, the Defendant cancelled the registration of the establishment of a neighboring building established on the instant land. On the 28th of February of the same year, the Defendant, who had no implementation of the payment of the remaining price, was mobilized from the oil point of February of the same year, developed the instant land again and occupied approximately 10 buildings on the said ground.

2. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the sales contract for the land of this case was lawfully rescinded on February 28, 1986 by the defendant's declaration of termination on the grounds of the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-performance of obligation to pay the remainder

A. As to a contract of real estate sales which is a bilateral contract, barring special circumstances, the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller's obligation to deliver documents for transfer of ownership are concurrently performed. In such a case, in order for a seller to cancel a contract for delay of payment to a buyer, the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller's obligation to deliver documents for transfer of ownership is insufficient solely on the fact that the buyer has not paid the remainder on the date of performance, and the seller has notified and notified the other party of the receipt of all documents necessary for the application for transfer of ownership, and the buyer has failed to comply with the application after demanding the other party to pay the remainder and notify the other party of the receipt. The seller's demand for performance of the other party's obligation to pay the remainder within a reasonable period

B. Since a certificate of personal seal impression issued by the defendant as a document for the registration of ownership transfer cannot be completed only with the certificate for the registration of ownership transfer, it cannot be deemed that the defendant provided its own debt performance, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant provided each of the necessary documents prior to the above registration to the plaintiff. Thus, in the case of this case where the remaining payment is provided with the documents for the registration of ownership transfer, and the defendant urged the plaintiff to pay the remaining amount and cancelled the sales contract on the ground that it

3. In the real estate sales contract which is a bilateral contract, the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller's duty to deliver the certificate of ownership transfer to the buyer simultaneously. In such a case, the seller's obligation to erase the seller's liability for delay is insufficient only to the fact that the buyer has not paid the remainder on the due date. In principle, the seller is required to prepare all the documents necessary for the seller's application for ownership transfer registration and provide them by notifying the other party of the receipt and notifying the other party of the receipt of the payment. In addition, the buyer's failure to comply with the request after notifying the other party of the performance of the other party's obligation to pay the remainder within a reasonable period of time. All the documents necessary for the seller's application for ownership transfer registration refer to all the documents required for the application for registration such as the certificate of ownership transfer, power of attorney and certificate of personal seal impression. (See Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1379 delivered on September 8,

However, regardless of the buyer's preparation or provision of the purchase price, the seller does not have the duty to provide the buyer with the real estate by completing the required documents to the extent that it is possible to immediately register the purchase price, and the buyer may refuse to pay the purchase price when the seller refuses to provide the purchase price by furnishing all such documents. If the buyer refuses to pay the purchase price for the same reason, the buyer cannot put the purchase price into a delay. However, if the buyer fails to prepare for the receipt of the registration of the transfer of ownership at the same time, the seller has obtained a certificate of personal seal for sale of real estate and has prepared for the certificate of personal seal impression or registration rights to prepare for the registration of the transfer of ownership at the same time as the receipt of the purchase price, and has prepared documents necessary for the application of the transfer of ownership to a certified judicial scrivener at the same time, and in this case, the above documents can be deemed sufficient by holding their own house.

4. According to the statement of evidence Nos. 17 (Notice) adopted by the court below in this case, when the defendant urged the non-party to pay the second remaining amount to the non-party as of February 25, 1986, the defendant prepared documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership on the land of this case and the provisional registration on the land of this case was not made, and the registration of transfer of ownership was cancelled. The first notification (No. 14) as of February 6 of the same year and the agreed interest thereon was not paid by the end of February 1986, it was deemed that the defendant issued a certificate of transfer registration for real estate sale with the plaintiff as of February 4, 1986 and the defendant issued a certificate of transfer registration for the land of this case to the non-party as of February 4, 1986. Thus, if the defendant had the right to the registration of this case's land of this case, it can be presumed that the defendant had the right to sell the land of this case with the certificate of transfer registration certificate issued to the other party's.

At the time of the purchase and sale contract of this case, the non-party intended to purchase only three parcels of land other than the land of this case, but the non-party intended to purchase only the land of this case, but it was recognized by the court below that the defendant would not sell all the above four parcels of land. The non-party delayed the payment of the purchase and sale balance for the land of this case and demanded cancellation of provisional registration which does not have any dispute over the amount by the defendant's peremptory notice until 3 months or 1986 May 30, 1986. According to the witness 1 of the court below's testimony, the non-party or the plaintiff's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-payment of the remaining parcel of land of this case without the defendant's right to perform the ownership transfer registration duty, and it is hard to accept the plaintiff's non-party or the plaintiff's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-performance of the right to defense of this case.

In such a case, if a party's performance of one party's own obligation in a bilateral contract is strictly required, it may rather be deemed that the other party in bad faith is able to make a mistake. Thus, the degree of provision to be made by one party should be reasonably determined so that it does not violate the principle of trust and good faith depending on the time and specific circumstances.

5. In addition, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, since the registration of establishment was completed near the land in this case, the documents necessary for the cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage should also be provided when the seller makes a peremptory notice for the performance of the registration. The defendant notified the cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on February 25, 1986, but the registration of cancellation was actually completed on February 27 of the same year. Thus, the defendant prepared documents necessary for cancellation at least at the time of the defendant's peremptory notice of performance. However, in light of the fact that the cancellation was realized after the formation of the registration, the defendant prepared documents necessary for cancellation, and the above registration was cancelled on or before February 28 of the same year, which is the date set by the defendant's peremptory notice. Thus, the validity of the contract cancellation made by the defendant cannot be denied for this reason.

6. If so, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by exceeding the rules of evidence, and the grounds for appeal are justified.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the second ground of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)