Standard for determining whether the father attached to a juristic act is a condition precedent or not fixed time limit;

Articles 147 and 152 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24215 Decided August 19, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1870), Supreme Court Decision 2010Da50199 Decided October 14, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da89036 Decided April 28, 201 (Gong201Sang, 1026)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Chang, Attorneys Park Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court Decision 2012Na6644 Decided February 8, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's claim for delivery of the building of this case and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of this case against the defendants on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the building of this case (hereinafter "the building of this case") on July 4, 2008, on the ground that the defendant 1 completed registration of preservation of ownership of the second building of this case from the first to the eighth above ground as to July 4, 2008.

In light of the records, it can be known that the registration of preservation of ownership of Defendant 1 with respect to the building No. 2 of this case was made according to the conciliation of this case, and no ground exists to deem it null and void. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the ownership of the building

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3 and 4

In a juristic act attached to an associate officer, it shall be deemed as a condition when it is reasonable to deem that a debtor does not perform his/her obligation unless the facts indicated in the associate officer have occurred, and where it is reasonable to deem that the debtor should perform his/her obligation even when the facts indicated have occurred, as well as when the facts indicated have become final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that the establishment of the indicated facts has become final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da24215, Aug. 19, 2003; 2010Da50199, Oct. 14, 2010).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, and determined that the mediation clause (4) of this case provides that the obligation of Defendant 1 to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the first, second and second floors among the buildings of this case to the plaintiff and the non-party shall arise only when the plaintiff and the non-party fully repay their obligations to the creditors pursuant to the mediation clause (3) of this case. Thus, even if the obligation to complete the registration of ownership transfer includes the obligation to deliver the building of this case to the creditors, the above assistant officers are deemed as a condition of suspension which is not the due date, and there is no evidence to prove that the suspension condition has been fulfilled, and further, it is insufficient to prove that Defendant 1 interfered with the fulfillment of the suspension condition against the good faith.

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)