Where several parcels of land were sold, but only a part of the purchase price was paid, and the court orders the registration of ownership transfer only with respect to a part of the land, the scope

Where a purchaser claims that he purchased several parcels of land and filed a claim for the registration of ownership transfer, but the fact that the sales contract was partially paid, and the seller simultaneously raises objection to the simultaneous performance, if the sales contract or the execution of the land is valid only with respect to a portion of the land that is not indivisible, or if the registration of ownership transfer is ordered only for a part of the land that is able to register ownership transfer, the court may render a judgment ordering concurrent performance and receipt of the insufficient sales price and simultaneous performance only to the extent that the total amount of the sales price paid by the purchaser falls short of the sales price of the land that is ordered to register the ownership transfer.

Article 536 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant-Appellant Park Jong-il, Counsel for defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na6062 delivered on June 25, 1992

The part of the lower judgment against Plaintiff 1 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Plaintiff 2’s appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the same Plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

The issue is that the buyer's name is "non-party 1 and two persons" in the sales contract (Evidence A No. 3) of this case is for the registration of ownership transfer in the future of a person eligible for the certification of farmland sale, and that the buyer is not at issue. However, according to the evidence No. 3, the buyer is "non-party 1 and two persons," and the plaintiff No. 2 is the person who has introduced the contract, and the plaintiff No. 1 is also the person who has introduced the contract, and the document No. 4, 5, 6, 7 (each witness examination report against non-party 1, non-party 2, non-party 3, and plaintiff No. 2) is consistent with the evidence No. 1-2, and therefore, the fact-finding of the court below which did not recognize the plaintiff No. 2 as the party to the sales contract

On the second ground for appeal

In the sale and purchase contract for farmland, the proof of the location government office is identical to the theory of lawsuit that it cannot be deemed the requirements or validity of the sale and purchase contract as a bond contract. Accordingly, even if there is no certificate of farmland sale and purchase, it is valid as a bond contract, and the buyer can request the seller to perform the contract without the certificate of farmland sale and purchase. However, if the seller claims the deficiency in the certificate of farmland sale and purchase in the lawsuit, the court cannot order the registration of transfer, and barring special circumstances, the seller's assertion of the deficiency in the certificate of farmland sale and purchase itself cannot be deemed to violate the principle of trust

The Supreme Court Decision (Law No. 85Meu971 delivered on April 28, 1987) is not appropriate in this case where a party member claims a transfer registration. There is no reason to discuss.

On the third ground for appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) among the instant land purchased from the Defendant, Plaintiff 1 can only file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the land indicated in Nos. 2, 5 (total sum of 10,820 square meters) in the [Attachment List 129,094,665] of the lower judgment, which is not farmland; (b) if the purchase price of the entire land of this case is deducted for KRW 13,00,000 and intermediate payment of KRW 30,000,00,000, the remaining amount is KRW 86,094,665, and the remaining amount is KRW 2,563 (total sum of 10,820 square meters), the remaining amount is KRW 3,166,83 (total amount of 86,653 x 988 x 10,820) from the Plaintiff; and (c) at the same time, the Defendant has an obligation to obtain ownership transfer registration for the said land from the Plaintiff 3,2536164,25.

2. However, in a case where the Plaintiff, the buyer, claimed that he purchased multiple parcels of land and filed for the registration of ownership transfer, but the fact that only a part of the purchase price was paid, and the Defendant, the seller, raises a defense of simultaneous performance, the sales contract is valid only for a part of the land or the registration of ownership transfer is possible only for a part of the land, and thus a judgment ordering concurrent performance can be rendered only to the extent that the total amount of the purchase price paid by the buyer does not fall short of the purchase price of the land ordering the registration of ownership transfer, and only to the extent that the payment does not fall short of the purchase price of the land ordering the registration of ownership transfer, it shall not be ordered to order concurrent performance.

Unless this is, it is unfair to order the payment of the price of the land that the plaintiff is unable to obtain the registration of transfer or that the registration of transfer is not received.

Therefore, the issue to point this out is with merit.

On the fourth ground

It is the principle that the contract should be implemented. However, all the contracts are not to be implemented under the conditions, but to be performed within the effective scope.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below's order only the registration of transfer of part of plaintiff 1, based on the facts of recognition, is illegal, and there is no ground for discussion.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part against Plaintiff 1 is reversed and remanded, and the appeal by Plaintiff 2 is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the same Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.