When there is a dispute over the implementation of the agreement after the conclusion of a new agreement to modify the final and conclusive judgment, and either party deposits for repayment of the remaining amount and receives no objection from the other party without any objection, any interpretation of the intention of receiving the deposit money.

If there was a new agreement to modify the contents of the judgment after the judgment on registration of transfer of ownership between Gap and Eul became final and conclusive, only claims and obligations pursuant to the new agreement will continue to exist, and claims and obligations pursuant to the final and conclusive judgment will become extinct. Thus, Gap cannot unilaterally perform his/her obligations, such as paying the remainder according to the same contents as the final and conclusive judgment, unless Gap and Eul renew the contract with the same contents as the final and conclusive judgment. Furthermore, Eul refused to receive such remainder, and Eul cannot make a deposit for the repayment of the remainder as the performance of obligations pursuant to the final and conclusive judgment. Even if Eul refused to receive the remainder pursuant to the new agreement with Eul, it is obvious that the agreement still remains valid unless Gap and Eul agreed to cancel the agreement on the ground of its refusal to receive the remainder, and even if Gap deposits the remainder as the grounds for deposit of the previous final and conclusive judgment and raised any objection thereto, it cannot be viewed that the remainder is not received as the final and conclusive judgment, and it is reasonable to deem the remainder as the receipt of the deposit under the previous agreement.

Articles 105 and 487 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Shin Young-young, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 and two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Daejeon District Court Decision 93Na5220 delivered on February 16, 1994

The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants regarding the portion of 19/194 square meters in 19/194 square meters in 194 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun ( Address 1 omitted), shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division. Defendant 2’s remaining appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal regarding the dismissed portion shall be borne by Defendant 2.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the defendants' obligation to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer cancellation registration:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above non-party 1 was not the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1.

However, as recognized by the court below, if there was a new agreement with the plaintiff and the non-party to change the contents of the above judgment after the above judgment became final and conclusive, only the claims and obligations pursuant to the above new agreement and the claims and obligations pursuant to the above final and conclusive judgment were extinguished. Thus, unless the above contract between the plaintiff and the non-party does not renew the above final and conclusive judgment, the plaintiff cannot perform his/her obligations, such as the payment of the remaining amount pursuant to the same contents as the above final and conclusive judgment, and further, the plaintiff cannot deposit the above remaining amount as the performance of obligations pursuant to the above final and conclusive judgment.

Meanwhile, even if the above non-party refused to receive the remaining amount under the above contract between the plaintiff and the non-party on May 31, 1989, it is clear that the contract still remains valid unless the plaintiff cancels the above contract on its ground or the plaintiff and the non-party agreed to cancel the above contract. In such a situation, if the plaintiff deposits for the payment of KRW 4,500,000 as the cause of deposit and received the above non-party without any objection reservation, it shall be deemed that the above non-party received the above deposit with the intent of receiving the remainder amount under the above contract on May 31, 1989, and it shall not be deemed that the non-party terminated the contract between the plaintiff and the non-party on May 31, 1989 and received the above deposit with the intent of impliedly concluding the contract with the above final judgment.

Therefore, according to the agreement on May 31, 1989 with respect to the above non-party, the plaintiff can only seek implementation of the ownership transfer procedure with respect to the remaining shares of 175/194 and the second real estate except shares of 19/194 among the first real estate of this case. The court below held that the plaintiff can seek implementation of the ownership transfer procedure with respect to shares of 19/194 among the first real estate of this case against the above non-party. Thus, it is obvious that there is an error of law in the application of the remaining law which erroneously interpreted the intention of the party. The argument to point this out is with merit.

2. As to Defendant 2’s duty to implement the registration procedures for cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage

The Defendants’ legal representative filed an appeal regarding Defendant 2’s duty to implement the procedures for registration of cancellation of the establishment of a mortgage, among the judgment below, on the part of Defendant 2’s duty to perform the procedures, but did not submit the grounds of appeal on the grounds of

3. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the part ordering the defendants to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each ownership transfer registration, which is completed with respect to shares of 19/194 among the real estate No. 1 of this case, is reversed. The case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination as to this part. The remaining appeals by Defendant 2 are dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissed portion are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)