(a) The extent of offering the performance of one's own obligation to cancel a bilateral contract on the grounds of non-performance of obligation;

(b) The validity of a contract where both parties have left the contract for a long time after the contract was concluded, without any name being given or given at the highest time;

A. In the case of bilateral contract with simultaneous performance, the person who wants to cancel the contract on the ground of the other party's default shall provide the other party with the performance of his obligation, and if the other party's act is necessary in the performance of his obligation, the other party shall complete the preparation to perform at any time, notify the other party of the intention of the completion, and make the other party enter into the delay of performance, but the other party shall be notified of the receipt, and it is not enough that the other party

B. It is reasonable to interpret that if both parties have neglected to provide or demand performance for a long time without any name due to the lack or renunciation of their intent to realize a contract after the contract, it shall be interpreted that the contract has been implicitly rescinded with the consent of both parties not to realize the contract.

A. Articles 460 and 536 of the Civil Act; Article 543 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 69Da1223, 1224 delivered on April 14, 1970

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants (Attorney Kim Sang-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na67 delivered on September 27, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

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

With respect to bilateral contract in simultaneous performance relations, those who intend to cancel the contract on the ground of the other party's non-performance shall provide the other party with the performance of his obligation, and if the other party's act is required in the performance of his obligation, at any time, they shall complete the preparation for performance in reality, notify the other party of the purport thereof, and make the other party go through the delay of performance, but the other party shall be notified of the receipt thereof, and it is not sufficient to simply have the preparation for performance. (See Supreme Court Decision 69Da1223, 1224 delivered on April 14, 1970).

However, it is reasonable to interpret that if both parties have neglected it for a long time without any name on the provision or demand of both parties due to the lack or renunciation of their intent to realize the contract after the contract, it shall be interpreted that the contract has been implicitly rescinded with the consent of both parties not to realize the contract.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the plaintiff's sale and purchase of the above real estate from the non-party 1's clan to the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3,00,00 won for the sale and purchase of the above real estate after the plaintiff's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's opinion.

If the facts are as seen above, in light of the above legal principles, the above sales contract, which is a bilateral contract, shall be deemed to have been implicitly rescinded by the agreement of both parties by neglecting it for a long time without the intention of both parties to realize the contract, and by failing to realize the contract. Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment below is somewhat insufficient. However, the judgment of the court below which rejected the defendants' defense that the above sales contract shall continue to remain effective on the premise that the above sales contract was implicitly rescinded. In this regard, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, contrary to the reasoning or the lack of reasons, and the plaintiff's proposal that the above sales contract was invalidated or invalidated by the lack of the parties' intent to realize it does not contain any assertion that the above sales contract was implicitly rescinded or terminated by the lack of the parties' intent to realize it, and there is no violation of the principle of pleading. Thus,

All of the arguments are not acceptable, since they are inconsistent with the judgment of the court below with different views.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 1

For that reason, the court below rejected the testimony of Non-Party 3 and Non-Party 1, which corresponds to the argument that the clan acquired the real estate of this case for 20 years or longer, since the above clan has long developed and cultivated the real estate of this case to many people and continued possession to the present defendants, at least for 20 years starting from June 25th of the 1950 incident occurred, and therefore, the clan has occupied the real estate of this case in peace and openly with its intention to own it for 20 years or longer from the date of the 20-year acquisition period. The testimony of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 1 is not sufficient to recognize it only with the evidence No. 1-7 and No. 2 without trust in light of the testimony of Non-Party 6 of the first instance trial witness, and it is not reasonable to review the process of examining the evidence preparation which was conducted to reach such a conclusion by the records, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law by misconceptioning facts contrary to the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)