The effect of a peremptory notice to pay residual amounts together with a copy of a registration certificate irrelevant to the registration procedure.

If the seller of real estate prepares all documents necessary for the registration of the buyer at the time of the peremptory notice to the buyer and the purport of the peremptory notice was indicated in that peremptory notice, the peremptory notice is valid as the premise of the cancellation of the sales contract, unless there is an affirmative objection, such as that the copy of the registration certificate prior to the merger or division, which was not a copy of the registration certificate of the target real estate, is not a copy of the registration certificate, but a copy of the registration certificate prior to the merger or division, which was not related to the registration procedure, is not prepared for documents attached to the peremptory notice, or that documents other than the

Article 544 of the Civil Act

Attorney Park Jong-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Information order et al. and five others

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na1134 delivered on December 1, 1980

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's information net roof, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, and erroneous discretion is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 1’s Republic of Korea against Defendant 1 is dismissed.

The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined (the grounds of appeal for supplement are with limits on supplement).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the court below completed the documents required for ownership transfer registration at the time of notifying the plaintiff, who is the purchaser of the 61-7 large 112 large 8 large Dobbeon-dong 61-7 large 112, 112-8 (hereinafter "third land") in order to pay the remaining amount. The court below's determination is just in light of the records and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory, and there is no violation of the rules of law such as theory, and the record that the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence such as the plaintiff's 6-1 and 6-10 large 16 large 1, 61-1 and 61-6 large 170 large 8 large Dobbeon-dong 61-2, 1978, and 61-6 large 170 large Dobbeon-28 (hereinafter "3 land").

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's information order, pent roof, Lee Jae-ok, Oin-style, Oin-style, and Oin-bok (the grounds of appeal for supplementary appeal are limited to the supplementary limit).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above 19-2 copy of the certificate of registration sent to the plaintiff on January 30, 1978, which was the defendant 1's information order and the 19-2-party 1's seller of the land and the 2-party 1's 1's 2-party 1's 61's 1-214's 61's 7-party 7's 9's 9-party 1's 9's 9-party 1's 1's 9-party 2's 9-party 1's 1's 9-party 2's 1's 9-party 1's 1's 9-party 1's 1's 2-party 2's 1's 9-party 2's 9-party 1's 9-party 1's 1's 9-party 2's 1's 2's 1's 1'

However, in cases where a seller’s obligation to register the ownership of real estate and obligation to pay the purchase price are simultaneously performed, the seller’s act requires the buyer’s act when demanding the payment of the remainder of the purchase price. Therefore, it is sufficient for the seller to complete the preparation of documents necessary for the registration procedure and notify the buyer of the intent, and it is not necessary to provide the documents or copies of the documents prepared by the seller at the time of the peremptory notice, and if the seller prepares all necessary documents at the time of the peremptory notice and the purport of the notification is indicated in the peremptory notice, even if the copy of the documents necessary for the registration procedure and documents irrelevant to the registration procedure are attached to the peremptory notice, the peremptory notice is not prepared for documents other than the documents attached to the peremptory notice, or if there is no affirmative declaration of objection that the other party would not actually provide the documents, the peremptory notice is valid as the premise of cancellation of the sale contract, and it is not clear that the seller would be in accordance with the seller’s duty to faithfully prepare the documents as well as his/her duty to pay the price.

However, as stated in the judgment of the court below, if the above Defendants were to possess the above 1 and 2 certificate of completion of the registration (No. 21 and 22 of the above certificate, which was submitted as evidence at the time of the court below's holding the above 1 and 2 certificate of completion of the land as evidence, and the appraisal result of No. 22 of the 1st appraiser of the court below was not recognized as being normal documents, it can be presumed that the above Defendants or their agents were holding the above certificate of completion of the registration at the time of the highest time of payment of the 1978. According to the records of the court below's reasoning, the above defendants were not present at the time of the above 1st and 3th of the above certificate of completion of the registration and the above 1st of the 1st of the 7th of the 7th of the 1st of the 7th of the 7th of the 7th of the 7th of the 9th of the 1st of the 7th of the 7th of the son evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, as seen above, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the peremptory notice which is the premise of cancelling the contract which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and in this respect, the appeal by the above defendants is with merit, and thus, the judgment on the remaining grounds

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is remanded to Seoul High Court, which is the court below. The plaintiff's 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 on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)