(a) If the buyer has agreed to write the seal of the seller on his/her behalf to report land transaction and the seller has failed to take measures for reporting, whether the seller has failed to fulfill his/her duty to cooperate;

B. Where one of the parties to a bilateral contract has offered the reality once, but the other party delays receipt, whether the other party loses a right to defense of simultaneous performance, and whether the other party can claim damages due to delay of performance after the offer for performance has been suspended;

A. If, when a buyer concludes a contract of land transaction with a seller, if the buyer concludes a transaction report and the buyer agrees to affix the seller’s seal to act on his/her behalf, it cannot be readily concluded that the seller neglected his/her duty to cooperate in the transaction report.

B. Even if one of the parties to a bilateral contract has offered the reality one time first, and even if the other party had been dismissed, the other party's right to defense of simultaneous performance held by the other party solely on the fact that the other party had offered the performance in the past is not extinguished, since the other party's right to defense of simultaneous performance is not extinguished, it cannot be said that the other party's obligation was temporarily omitted during the period in which the offer of performance was temporarily discontinued, but the other party's obligation was suspended and the offer of performance was no longer continued, and therefore, it cannot be said that the other party's obligation was delayed after the suspension of the provision of performance.

(b)Articles 536, 568(b) and 390 of the Civil Code;

B. Supreme Court Decision 72Da163 delivered on March 8, 1972 (No. 20112 delivered on November 14, 1972) 72Da1513,1514 delivered on November 14, 1972 (No. 1993Ha, 2589) (Gong193Ha, 2589)

Attorney Lee Han-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 93Na8467 delivered on April 29, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

As duly determined by the court below, if the plaintiff who is the purchaser of the land in this case, agreed to affix the seal of the defendant and act on behalf of the plaintiff when entering into a sale contract with the defendant who is the seller, the plaintiff cannot be readily concluded that the defendant neglected the duty to cooperate in the land transaction report like the theory of lawsuit. The judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the duty to cooperate in the land transaction report, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

(1) When the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the Defendant, the lower court: (a) calculated the tax amount, such as transfer income tax, etc. to be borne by the Defendant in advance; (b) provided the Defendant with an amount equivalent to the transfer income tax, etc. to the Defendant not later than the payment of the balance; or (c) made a notarial deed with the effect that in the event the Plaintiff did not provide the amount equivalent to the transfer income tax, etc. to the Defendant at least until the payment of the balance; and (d) made a special agreement to prepare and deliver to the Defendant the amount equivalent to the amount of the tax amount without delay until the payment of the balance; (b) on the premise that the Plaintiff’s obligation under the above special agreement and the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the ownership transfer registration documents should be deemed to be in a simultaneous performance relationship; (c) on August 6, 1991, the Nonparty’s representative director demanded the Defendant to prepare and deliver a notarial deed with the Defendant to deliver it to the Defendant; (d) however, (e) recognized that the Defendant did not have any obligation to provide the Plaintiff’s compensation for delay of performance.

(2) However, even if one of the parties to a bilateral contract has offered one reality first, and even if the other party was dismissed at the place of receipt, the right to defense of simultaneous performance held by the other party is not extinguished solely on the fact that the other party had offered performance in the past (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da56490, Aug. 24, 1993; 92Da56490, Aug. 24, 1993). Although one of the parties was temporarily provided with performance, it cannot be said that the other party's obligation was omitted at the place of delay during the period in which the provision was discontinued, and therefore, it cannot be said that the other party's obligation was delayed after the suspension of performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da1513,1514, Nov. 14, 1972; 6Da17174, Sept. 20, 196).

Nevertheless, as long as one-time performance of the obligation under the Plaintiff’s special agreement has been provided, even if the provision was suspended thereafter, the obligation of the Defendant to perform the registration procedure for transfer of ownership was omitted in the continuous performance, and the Defendant is liable for damages arising from the delay of performance, regardless of whether the Plaintiff has a right of defense for simultaneous performance against the Plaintiff’s claim for transfer of ownership, the decision of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the suspension of performance under the bilateral contract and the right of compensation for damages arising from the simultaneous performance defense and delay of performance held by the other party. However, it is reasonable in conclusion that the court below dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Defendant was liable for damages due to the delay of performance due to the Defendant’s obligation to perform the registration procedure for transfer of ownership, while there was no proof about

However, as long as the defendant's obligation to execute the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of this case is not in a state of delay, so long as the defendant cannot be held liable for the non-performance of obligation, the court does not need to determine the existence of damage. Thus, the argument is without merit.

3. 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 Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)