Legal relations in which the obligation to pay part payments and the obligation to deliver registration documents are simultaneously in a bilateral contract in which the obligation to pay part payments and the obligation to deliver registration documents has expired by the due date for payment

Even if the buyer's obligation to pay part payments and the seller's obligation to deliver documents required for registration under a sales contract had a simultaneous performance relationship, if the buyer's obligation to pay part payments and the buyer's obligation to pay part payments and the remainder payments have passed by the due date for the remainder payments, unless there are special circumstances, the buyer's obligation to pay part payments and the remainder payments have concurrent performance relationship with the seller's obligation to deliver documents required for registration.

Articles 536 and 568 of the Civil Act

Seoul High Court Decision 80Da268 delivered on April 22, 1980 (Ba268 delivered on April 22, 198, Article 536 (1) 41 of the Civil Code, Article 536 (1) 28 Gong634 delivered on April 2, 198)

Section 40

Kim fixed-type

Suwon District Court Branch of Sungwon District Court (83Gahap204 decided May 2, 200)

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The defendant shall order the plaintiff to write down the building in the attached list.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

Paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment above and the declaration of provisional execution

The defendant purchased 18,00,000 won from the plaintiff on March 11, 1983 the building in the order of the plaintiff owner (hereinafter the building in this case), and the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to collect 13,50,000 won (18,000,000-4,500,000 won) excluding 4,50,000 won financed by the plaintiff from the bank from the above purchase, and the defendant did not receive 13,50,000 won for the remainder of 13,50,000 won (18,000-4,50,000 won as contract deposit on the same day, and 3,00,00,000 won for the above part payment to the plaintiff on April 2 of the same year, and 25, 200, 300,000 won for the intermediate payment (the intermediate payment on the contract deposit, hereinafter the above contract deposit, and 4,005,0000 won for each of the above contract deposit.

On May 11, 1983, the plaintiff provided the defendant with documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, which is his own obligation, and notified the defendant of his cancellation of the contract if the defendant would not pay the above intermediate payment and the remaining payment by the 16th of the same month. Thus, the contract of this case was cancelled as of the 16th of the same month, and the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff to present the building of this case. As the effect of the cancellation, the defendant argued that the plaintiff is obligated to order the above intermediate payment as of the 16th of the same month. The defendant agreed to deliver the above part payment to the plaintiff at the time of the above contract, and at the same time the plaintiff did not perform his obligation to deliver the above registration required documents, but the plaintiff notified the above cancellation of the contract for the reason that the defendant's above obligation to deliver the above part payment and the remaining payment were not fulfilled. Even if the contract is not acknowledged, the above contract does not have any effect, and the plaintiff did not notify the above obligation to deliver the above registration documents.

Therefore, even if the obligation of the defendant to pay part of the intermediate payment and the obligation of the plaintiff to deliver the documents required for registration under the agreement with the plaintiff as the plaintiff's principal, as the plaintiff's principal, has concurrently been fulfilled with the obligation to deliver the documents required for registration, unless there are special circumstances, then the defendant's above obligation to pay part of the intermediate payment and the remaining payment have concurrently been fulfilled with the obligation to deliver the documents required for registration, and since then, the defendant's above obligation to pay part of the intermediate payment and the remaining payment have not been fulfilled with the above obligation to deliver the documents required for registration, and the defendant's above obligation to pay part of the intermediate payment has not been fulfilled with the above obligation to deliver the documents for registration, and as a result, the above obligation to pay part of the intermediate payment and the remaining payment has not been fulfilled with the above obligation to deliver the documents for registration No. 4, No. 7-1, No. 8 (Certificate of Seal), and No. 2 (Evidence of Contents), and there is no dispute over the establishment of the above part of the above obligation to receive part of the remaining payment without the plaintiff's reply.

Therefore, the above sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded after the lapse of May 16, 1983, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff to restore it to the duty of restoration, and therefore the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the performance of the duty of restoration shall be accepted as well as the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be justified. Thus, the judgment of the court below which differs from this conclusion is unfair and the plaintiff's appeal is justified, and therefore the judgment of the court below is revoked and the judgment of the court below is revoked and the judgment of the court below is ordered to order the defendant to issue an order for the name of the building of this case. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant who has lost both the

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge) and Kim Dong-ho