2013Da54918, Registration, etc. of transfer of ownership

2013Da54925 (Counterclaim) Transfer, etc. of ownership

A

person

B

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2012Na4774, 555 decided June 14, 2013

Judgment

April 23, 2015

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The remaining appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that it was reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s entering into an apartment supply contract to which the instant apartment was supplied under the name of the Defendant, a grandchild, pursuant to the contract title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The right to defense of simultaneous performance is recognized when both parties are related with each other’s obligation, and when one of the parties requests performance of the other party’s obligation without performing or providing performance, the other party may refuse performance of the other party’s obligation. Thus, the other party’s right to defense of simultaneous performance is also a system that allows the other party to refuse performance of the other party’s obligation. A party liable for performance should either assume the other party’s liability for nonperformance of obligation on the ground that the other party did not provide performance of the other party’s obligation, or cause the other party to cause delay of performance by providing performance of his/her obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da46771, Apr. 12, 2002).

B. The court below held that the defendant's obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase fund of the apartment of this case, acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. and the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the apartment of this case to the defendant of this case all occurred in relation to the validity of the contract title trust agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and held that the defendant has a duty to return unjust enrichment at the same time as the return of the apartment of this case's purchase fund of this case, etc. of this case and the damages for delay from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the main complaint as to the claim for counterclaim. The court below held that the defendant has a duty to deliver the apartment of this case to the defendant at the same time with the payment from the day after the date of delivery of the copy of the main complaint to the plaintiff of the purchase

However, in light of the above legal principles, since the defendant's obligation to pay the purchase fund of the apartment of this case is concurrently performed with the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the apartment of this case, so long as there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff completed the preparation to perform the obligation to deliver the apartment of this case in reality and notified the purport thereof, damages for delay as to considerable unjust enrichment, such as the purchase fund of the apartment of this case, which the defendant should pay to the plaintiff shall not be paid to the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the court below determined that damages for delay should be paid to the plaintiff for unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of unjust enrichment such as the purchase fund of the apartment of this case, etc., which the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Decision 200

A person shall be appointed.