(a) Requirements for the cancellation of a sales contract by the seller to erase his/her delayed responsibility for the buyer;

(b) The extent of a seller's provision of performance necessary for the cancellation of a sales contract where the purchaser fails to prepare to receive documents for registration of ownership transfer, such as failure to pay the remainder, when the purchaser takes a non-cooperative attitude in performing the contract;

A. In the real estate sales contract which is a bilateral contract, the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller's duty to deliver the certificate of transfer of ownership is concurrently performed. In such a case, in order to erase the seller's delayed liability, the seller is not obliged to pay the remainder on the due date. In principle, the seller is required to prepare all documents necessary for the seller's application for transfer of ownership and provide them by notifying the other party of the fact that the seller is not able to accept the application for transfer of ownership and notify the other party of the receipt of the fact that the buyer fails to comply with the application, and all documents necessary for the seller's application for transfer of ownership are required to be provided.

B. If a purchaser fails to prepare to receive a document for registration of ownership transfer, such as failure to pay the balance, while taking a non-cooperative attitude in performing a contract, the seller will also be sufficient to prepare for the corresponding performance. In this case, if the seller has obtained a certificate of the personal seal impression for real estate sale and prepared to prepare documents necessary for filing an application for registration of ownership transfer by delegation to a certified judicial scrivener, etc. at the same time with the receipt of the balance of the certificate of the personal seal impression and the certificate of the registration rights, etc.

Article 460 of the Civil Act, Article 544 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da5713 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992,2396) (Gong191,2514 delivered on November 13, 1990). Supreme Court Decision 90Da8343 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong191,2134 delivered on July 23, 1991) (Gong191,2470 delivered on July 24, 1992)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Oh-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daejeon District Court Decision 91Na6359 delivered on July 15, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased 94 square meters of 274 square meters of 274 square meters of 198,000 won on the day, and agreed to pay the remainder with the required documents for the transfer of ownership on October 9 of the same year, but delayed the payment date on February 24 of the same year. The court below determined that the contract of this case was cancelled by the defendant's declaration of intention on February 2, 1990, on the ground that the plaintiff's remaining payment date was not the same as the plaintiff's remaining payment date, on the ground that the contract of this case was not executed by the defendant's agent for the above 94 square meters of 194 square meters of 274 square meters of 19,000,000 won of the above contract, and that the defendant did not pay the remainder to the defendant for the remaining payment date on the ground that the plaintiff's remaining payment date was not made by the plaintiff's 1,090.

In a real estate sales contract which is a bilateral contract, the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and seller's duty to provide documents for ownership transfer registration are concurrently performed, barring special circumstances. In such a case, if the seller intends to cancel the sales contract, the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller's duty to pay the remainder are insufficient to the extent that the buyer fails to pay the remainder on the due date and to notify the other party of the receipt of all documents necessary for the seller's application for ownership transfer registration, and it should be in principle that the buyer fails to comply with the request by notifying the other party of the receipt of the remainder and the due date. And all necessary documents for the seller's application for ownership transfer registration are stated as the purport of the judgment of the court below. However, if the seller prepares for or provides the remainder to the buyer, it is sufficient that the seller will prepare documents for ownership transfer registration to the extent that it can be possible without delay to do so; 1.2.3. It is sufficient that the seller will prepare documents for ownership transfer registration to the extent that it is possible to submit them to the seller 97.197.

According to the court below's findings in this case, since the defendant was issued a certificate of seal impression for real estate sale, the power of attorney among documents not prepared by the defendant can be easily prepared by affixing a certificate of seal impression on the paper, and a certificate of seal imprint under the Registration of Real Estate Act may also be prepared by affixing a certificate of seal imprint on the paper. According to the records, the plaintiff can see that the land in this case belongs to the regulated area although the land in this case did not belong to the regulation area of land transaction permission, and that the plaintiff refused to pay the remaining amount while discussing the land transaction permission procedure in particular against the defendant. Under these circumstances, if the defendant was notified the plaintiff of the preparation of the documents required for the registration of ownership transfer for the land in this case by preparing for a certificate of seal impression for real estate sale, it is reasonable to view that the defendant provided a performance once, barring special circumstances.

In addition to the documents provided by the defendant, the court below judged that the defendant's provision of performance was not legitimate on the grounds that the contract of approval and the preparation for power of attorney was not made, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the provision of performance in the termination of contract. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and 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.