Whether the seller may cancel the contract where the buyer has failed to pay the remainder for the reason of the shortage in quantity when he/she sells the quantity designated, without filing a claim for price reduction, cancellation of the contract, and claim for damages.

Even if the transfer contract designates the quantity and recognizes the fact that the amount is less than four square meters than the ordinary terms of the contract, the transferee may cancel the contract if, at least before the due date for the payment, the reduction of the price is requested, or the defendant does not take over the right of lease for the same reason, if the whole contract is cancelled and the claim for damages has not been made, but if the due date for the payment has been passed without objection such as bad, etc., the seller shall not be exempted from liability for delay of performance.

Articles 544, 572, and 574 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court (4294 Civil Joint11) in the first instance

This case is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (1) of the original judgment.

1. Judgment between the parties;

The defendant shall revoke his original judgment as the purport of prosecution.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in both the first and second instances, and the plaintiff is awarded the same judgment as the disposition.

2. The relationship between statements and evidences of both parties; and

At the time when the plaintiff and the defendant enter into a sales contract for the building on the same site, both parties can specify the site as the " fence" attached to the building site, and thereafter, they shall accept the same as the entry in the facts column in the original judgment in addition to the statement that there was no substantial change in the site.

1. The Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant site from the Sungsung Hot Spring Co., Ltd., its owner; (b) constructed 2 building on the said site and owned it; and (c) on May 21, 1958, the Plaintiff sold the building on the ground together with the right of lease of the said site he was occupied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant at KRW 430,00,000; and (d) agreed to pay a down payment at KRW 80,000 as the down payment on the day when the remainder amount was paid to the Defendant on June 10, 1958; (b) the Defendant paid the down payment at KRW 80,000, but did not pay the remainder amount to the Plaintiff on June 10, 1958; and (c) the Defendant did not pay the remainder amount to the Plaintiff so far; and (d) there is no dispute between the parties in possession of the instant building.

2. In light of the contents of No. 3-1 and No. 3-2 without dispute between the parties, and the defendant does not perform the obligation to pay the remainder on June 10, 1958, which is the date of payment of the remainder of the contract under the above transfer contract, and the plaintiff did not comply with the obligation to pay the remainder on June 10, 1958. Thus, the plaintiff notified the defendant that the above transfer contract should be cancelled by content-certified mail, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above recognition.

If so, the above transfer contract is already cancelled by the notification of termination of contract to the defendant.

3. However, the defendant's failure to perform the obligation to pay the remaining amount under the above transfer contract at the due date is to find out the fact that the actual average amount of the site among the subject matter of sale in this case is four square meters or less than the contract average amount, and to demand a reduction of the price, but it cannot be paid because the plaintiff

Therefore, as the plaintiff's notification of the termination of contract is invalid, the plaintiff's notification of the termination of contract is not liable for the defendant's delay. Thus, considering the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the plaintiff and the defendant will operate a laundry business on October 15, 1956, and considering the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the plaintiff and the defendant will operate a laundry business on October 15, 1956, and the defendant will move into the building and terminate the above business contract and enter into the principal contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, it is not set for the ordinary time of the building and the site ordinary time, but it is reasonable to set the price for the principal contract between the plaintiff. However, the whole 430,000 money was written around the building site and its wide area was specified, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above recognition.

Therefore, even if the amount of the rent indicated on the above site is reduced by the actual horizontal figure and the contract, it cannot be said that the defendant did not know the shortage at the time of the contract, and therefore the defendant cannot exercise the right to demand reduction against the plaintiff. Even if the above transfer contract for the above transfer contract is a sale with the quantity designated and the amount of the contract is below four square meters, the transferee may claim reduction of the price at least for the same reason before the due date of the payment, or if the contract is only the remaining portion for the same reason, the transferee may not know that if the defendant did not take over the right of lease, he would cancel the entire contract and claim the damages without objection, but the obligation for delay delay will not be exempted, and the defendant shall not assert any objection against the fact that he received the notification of the termination of the contract from the plaintiff on June 16, 1958.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be exempted from liability for delay of payment due to the intention of the due date for the payment of the remaining amount without any justifiable reason. Therefore, the notification of the cancellation of the electricity to the defendant is valid, and the above defense of the defendant is groundless.

4. If so, the defendant's possession should be viewed as an illegal possession in a case where there is no assertion and proof as to the right to possess the defendant's main building. Thus, since the defendant is obligated to respond to the plaintiff's request for evacuation as the owner of the building in this case, the plaintiff's claim for the main claim should be accepted as reasonable.

Therefore, since the original judgment consistent with the above conclusion is justified, the main case is dismissed by applying Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 199, 95, and 89 of the same Act with respect to litigation costs and declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Han Man-man (Presiding Judge)