2014Da236410 Penalty

A

B

Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Na10225 Decided December 11, 2014

May 28, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the process of concluding the instant sales contract on July 15, 2013, the lower court: (a) prepared a sales contract with a purchase price of KRW 1550 million with the Plaintiff’s request for reduction of the Plaintiff’s purchase price; (b) additionally stated that “50 million won shall be deducted from the sales contract; (c) the Defendant also demanded the Plaintiff to prepare a multilateral contract with a purchase price of KRW 74 million with the content that the purchase price shall be KRW 74 million; and (d) further stated an additional special agreement with the Plaintiff to enter into the sales contract with the effect that the Plaintiff would not have any significant burden on the Plaintiff at the time of signing the sales contract, on the following grounds: (a) on the grounds that the Plaintiff would not have entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant’s declaration of intent to receive any balance that the Defendant would have entered into the instant multi-sale contract and would have caused the registration of ownership transfer; and (b) determined that the Plaintiff would not have any significant burden on the Plaintiff at the time of signing the sales contract with the agreement to enter into force.

2. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, on July 15, 2013, the original costs and the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant real estate at KRW 155 million (payment of KRW 40 million on the contract date and KRW 115 million on August 28, 2013). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not request the Defendant to complete the registration of transfer of ownership to transfer the remainder of KRW 74 million after deducting KRW 5 million from the purchase price at the time of payment of the remainder, as seen earlier. After the completion of the contract, the Plaintiff, upon the completion of the preparation of the contract, paid the Defendant the remainder of KRW 40 million, and the Plaintiff prepared for the remainder of KRW 115 million, which is the date of payment of the remainder, and did not request the Defendant to complete the registration of transfer of ownership to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff did not request the payment of the remainder of KRW 150 million,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant.

According to these facts, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to sell the real estate of this case at KRW 150 million at the time of the sales contract of this case and to prepare for the so-called multi-purpose contract with KRW 74 million with the purchase price. The purpose of the sales contract of this case is to transfer the ownership of the real estate of this case from the defendant and to pay the purchase price from the plaintiff, the principal obligation is the defendant's obligation to transfer the ownership of this case and the defendant's obligation to pay the purchase price, and the agreement to prepare the multi-unit contract is deemed to be made with the purport that the defendant's convenience related to the transfer income tax is given. Thus, since the obligation to prepare the multi-unit contract is deemed to be a non-performance, the obligation to prepare the multi-unit contract cannot be deemed to be an incidental obligation, not the principal obligation of the sales contract of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's failure to perform its principal obligation cannot be refused by the defendant. However, in the case of cancellation of the contract, it is reasonable to consider this situation.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s duty to prepare a multilateral contract constitutes the principal obligation of the instant sales contract and is in a concurrent performance relationship with the Defendant’s duty to transfer ownership. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principal obligation and incidental obligation in a sales contract, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Decision 200

Justices Lee In-bok, Counsel for the appeal

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young