The extent of preparation by either party of a bilateral contract for the performance of his own obligation to be adequate when demanding the other party to discharge his obligation.

Where one of the parties to a bilateral contract offers performance once the due date and makes the other party enter into a delay of performance, one of the parties who are given the highest notice under the principle of good faith shall continue to provide performance, even if it is not necessary to continue to perform his/her obligation, if the other party makes performance or provides performance within the highest period of time, the right to cancel the contract is extinguished. Therefore, the other party shall be prepared to the extent that

Article 544 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant] Plaintiff (Attorney Seo-tae, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Shin Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na1146, 1147 delivered on December 2, 1981

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 6 company did not pay the above non-party 9 bonds to the non-party 7 non-party 9 company's non-party 6 company's disposal of the remaining land under the name of the non-party 9 company's 6 company's sale of the above non-party 6 company's purchase price and the non-party 6 company's sale of the non-party 9 company's sale of the above land to the non-party 7 non-party 9 company's disposal of the non-party 9 company's disposal of the non-party 6 company's remaining land after the non-party 6 company's disposal of the non-party 9 company's disposal of the non-party 9 company's disposal of the non-party 9 company's remaining land under the name of the non-party 6 company's 9 company's disposal of the above non-party 9 company's disposal of the remaining land. The non-party 6 company's sale of the above land by the non-party 9 company's sale of the

The requirements for rescission of a contract are to acquire the right of statutory rescission in a bilateral contract, i.e., acquisition of the right of statutory rescission, even though the other party provided the other party with the performance according to the contractual contract, but does not provide the other party with the performance, so the other party does not provide the performance, and even if the other party gives the other party a notice to perform the obligation again within a reasonable period of time. If the other party causes the other party to delay of performance by providing performance once due to the due date, the party who gives a peremptory notice under the principle of good faith in the bilateral contract, even though the other party does not need to continue the performance within the highest period of time, the other party's right of rescission is extinguished if the other party provides the performance within the highest period of time,

Therefore, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party company had already transferred the subject matter of the sale in this case to the plaintiff on June 7, 1976, and decided that the non-party company notified the defendant to pay the remaining amount to August 5 of 1976, which was thereafter, the non-party company, and the defendant did not perform this, and that the sales contract in this case between the non-party company and the defendant was cancelled on August 5, 1976, the above non-party company and the defendant was not exempted from the charge that the non-party company did not meet the reasons for the misunderstanding of the legal principles of rescission of contract, and therefore, the judgment below

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)