The legitimacy of recognizing the cancellation of the contract for the reason of the buyer's default on payment of the purchase price and the provision of ownership transfer registration documents in the real estate sales contract in which the buyer has simultaneously performed, without expressly stating what the documents the seller has provided.

In a real estate sales contract in which the payment of the remainder is simultaneously conducted with the provision of ownership transfer registration documents, it is illegal to recognize the cancellation of the contract for the reason that the buyer's delay in the payment of the remainder is illegal without examining whether the documents for transfer of the registration provided by the seller are specific or not and whether it can be seen as the provision of performance according to the principal place of the obligation

Articles 536 and 544 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2527, 2528 Decided July 23, 1985

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Gwangju High Court Decision 84Na228 delivered on June 21, 1985

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff purchased the land as indicated in the judgment of the court below from November 26, 1981, and paid down payment and intermediate payment. The remaining amount of KRW 4,200,00 to be paid simultaneously with the delivery of documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership in the same year, Defendant 1 received the above intermediate payment, and the above remaining payment date was completed, and the provisional registration and transfer of ownership were completed for the preservation of the above land for sale purpose as stated in the judgment of the court below. Defendant 1 sought implementation of the procedure for transfer of ownership under the above sale and purchase of this case's land in exchange for the above remaining purchase and sale price, and the registration of provisional registration and transfer of ownership was made under the premise that the above sale and purchase price of this case's land became invalid for the plaintiff 1 to whom the above sale and purchase price of this case's land became invalid for the plaintiff 2 to whom the above sale and purchase price of this case's land became invalid for the defendant 1 to whom the above remaining payment was made within 18 months.

However, as to whether the sales contract for the above land between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 was lawfully rescinded, the court below examined the evidence based on the records, and the witness of the court of first instance 2 sent the plaintiff's balance to the office of judicial affairs of non-party 1, 1982. Thus, the plaintiff's request for the payment of the balance with the certificate of personal seal impression affixed to the defendant 12 of the same month because the plaintiff had a certificate of personal seal impression affixed to transfer registration, but the plaintiff refused to pay the balance, so the plaintiff sent the peremptory notice as shown in No. 4 and notified the cancellation of the contract as shown in No. 3 of this case. However, although the above certificate of personal seal impression (the above defendant's name for exclusive use of land No. 5, Jan. 12, 1982) cannot be completed the registration of transfer for the above land, if the plaintiff did not provide the above certificate of personal seal impression to the plaintiff at the time of original adjudication, it cannot be deemed that the defendant provided the above documents to the plaintiff and had no effect on the transfer registration of ownership at the same time.

However, the court below's decision that recognized the cancellation of the contract of this case without examining whether the documents for the transfer of registration provided by the defendant specifically and only the documents for the transfer of registration can be seen as the provision of performance according to the principal of the obligation is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to simultaneous performance in the bilateral contract, or in the misunderstanding of facts contrary to the rules of evidence, or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to facts contrary to the rules of evidence, and the misunderstanding of this error constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)