In the case of a bilateral contract, the condition that one of the parties rescinds the contract.

Where both parties to a bilateral contract such as sale and purchase have to perform at the same time, if either of the parties to the contract intends to cancel the contract on the ground that there is a breach of duty on either of the parties to the contract, it shall be limited to cases where the other party has an intention to perform as a truth and has provided performance belonging to the obligation, but either party has not fulfilled his/her obligation.

Article 544 of the Civil Act

October 30, 1952, 4285 CivilSang90 decided Oct. 30, 1952 (Civil Code Article 544(2) 446, 4721)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others

Gwangju District Court (81 Ghana122)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The Defendants received KRW 19,050,000 from the Plaintiff and, at the same time, implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the 572 square meters in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City on September 29, 1980 with respect to the 572 square meters prior to the sale.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

On September 29, 1980, the Plaintiff intended to purchase 572 square meters prior to the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, to purchase from the Defendants for KRW 30,000,000 as the price per contract deposit, KRW 13,00,000 as the intermediate payment on October 20, 1980, and KRW 19,050,000 as the price for the intermediate payment on November 15, 1980, respectively, and there was no dispute between the Defendants on the fact that the sales contract to simultaneously implement the procedures for the transfer of land and the transfer of ownership and the payment of remaining amount was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,00,00 as the down payment per contract date on October 20, 198, both of the parties concerned and the Plaintiff paid KRW 300,000 as the intermediate payment on October 20, 1980.

On the premise that the above sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant remains effective, the defendants asserted that the above sales contract was cancelled due to the plaintiff's failure to pay the remaining amount at the time of the above payment of the purchase price for the above land. Thus, the above 10-3-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-7 of the above 9-7-1-2-1-7 of the court below's allegation that the above 1-5-1-2-3-1-3-2-1-7-1-7-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-1-7-7-1-7-1-7-7-1-7-7-1-7-77-1-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7

However, if both parties to a bilateral contract such as sale and purchase are required to perform at the same time, there is a breach of contract between the parties to the contract in order for the other party to cancel the contract, and the other party has intent to perform it as true and has provided performance to the other party, and the other party does not perform his/her own obligation. The above facts are as follows: (a) in this case, the Defendants merely notified the Plaintiff of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer and delivery with respect to the land of this case at the same time as the Plaintiff's remainder payment and the payment of the remainder unilaterally to the Plaintiff without providing the Plaintiff with complete performance; (b) even if the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder at the due date or the highest date after the payment, the Defendants cannot obtain the right of rescission due to the delay of the payment of the Plaintiff's remainder payment, and therefore, there is no effect of the indication of intent to cancel the above sales contract between the original party and the Defendant, and therefore, the sales contract of this case remains effective.

Therefore, the defendants shall receive 19,050,000 won from the plaintiff to the plaintiff in accordance with the above sales contract for the plaintiff, and at the same time, they shall be obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the 572 square meters prior to the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju City on September 29, 1980. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be justified, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be unfair, and the judgment of the court below shall be revoked, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants who lost all the first and second trials as stated in the order, and the judgment shall be delivered as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)