(a) Peremptory and considerable period of time;

(b) Where the contract is intended to be rescinded upon the lapse of the maximum period for performance;

1.In cancelling a contract on the grounds of delay of performance, the peremptory notice of performance, which is a prerequisite for the premise, is not required to be given in advance for a certain period of time, and the right of rescission shall accrue after a reasonable period has elapsed from

2. If a contract is intended to be rescinded at the same time as a peremptory notice to perform an obligation for a specified period is given, and if there is no performance within such specified period, the contract shall be deemed rescinded at the expiration of such

Article 544 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da1508 Delivered on September 29, 1970, 64Da1224 Decided March 23, 1965

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Yu-sik et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na2513,2514 decided May 17, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is examined.

In the case of cancelling a contract on the grounds of delay of performance, the peremptory notice of performance, which is a prerequisite for the premise, does not require a prior peremptory notice to specify a certain period of time, and there is a right of rescission after a considerable period of time from the peremptory notice (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da1224, Mar. 23, 1965). In addition, if the contract is notified to perform an obligation within a certain period of time and the contract is expressed to the effect that the contract will be rescinded if the contract is not performed within such period of time, the contract shall be deemed to have been rescinded upon the lapse of such period (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da1508, Sept. 29, 197). According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff provided the non-party with a document required for the registration of ownership transfer of the land in this case to the non-party and notified the non-party to perform the intermediate payment and remaining payment, and the plaintiff again expressed his intention to cancel the contract without the payment of the intermediate payment and remaining payment by the non-party.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)