The phrase "one of the parties" as stipulated in Article 565 (1) of the Civil Code refers to one of both parties to the sale and purchase, and is not limited to one of the other parties.

One of the parties referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article is referred to as either of the parties in trade and is not limited to the other party, so the party which commenced the performance of part of the sales contract may not exercise its right of rescission even if the other party did not commence the performance of the contract.

Article 565 of the Civil Act

November 17, 1956Sang293 delivered on November 17, 1956

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 69Na67 delivered on December 4, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney;

In light of the original judgment, it is clear that the original judgment recognized the down payment received in the contract for the sale of forest land between the original and the defendant as the number of cancellation fees such as theory, and that the original judgment is one of the parties referred to in Article 565 (1) of the Civil Act does not mean either of the two parties to the sale and purchase, nor is it limited to the other party. Therefore, even though the other party commenced to perform part of the sale and purchase contract, even if the other party did not undertake the other party's performance, the parties to the sale and purchase contract can not exercise its right of rescission (see Supreme Court Decision 4289Da293 delivered on November 17, 1956). The original judgment was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of action that the defendant who is one of the parties to the contract for the sale and purchase of forest was unable to cancel the contract by means of repayment of the down payment, as long as the contract for the performance of the contract for the sale and purchase of forest land was commenced by the defendant after the contract for the sale of forest land was executed by the plaintiff.

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In reviewing the original judgment, it is clear that the original judgment was rejected because there is no evidence as to the rescission of the agreement on the contract for the purchase and sale of forest in this case, such as the defendant's theory, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no illegality

The judgment on the third ground for appeal as above;

In this case, there is no trace of the special agreement for the establishment of a passage, such as theory, or the argument that it will be reserved as owned by the defendant in installments, and such argument cannot be a ground for appeal against the original judgment. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon