(a)the time to furnish the opposite obligation in the case of demanding the performance of the other party’s obligation with a set of “within a given period of time” or “fixed date and time”;

(b) the meaning of an expression of intent that the contract will be terminated as a matter of course unless performed within the maximum period of performance.

A. In order for one of the parties having simultaneous performance relations to obtain the right of rescission for the other party's delay, if the fulfillment period indicated in the request for performance is set within a certain period, in principle, the person demanding performance must continue to provide performance during that period, but if there is any provision for performance on that date, such period or date is sufficient, and thus the right of rescission is excessive without any other party's performance.

B. The claim for performance that a contract shall be naturally rescinded if the contract is not performed within the prescribed period, shall be deemed to have been declared in advance on the condition that the contract is not performed within the prescribed period or within the period, at the same time as the claim for performance is demanded.

Articles 543 and 544 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da1508 Delivered on September 29, 1970

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2828 delivered on September 5, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Point 1

In light of Gap evidence No. 7 (Peremptory Notice), although there is a substitute title contrary to the facts found by the court below in the lawsuit (other than evidence No. 6), and considering the other evidence adopted by the court below to recognize the above facts in light of the records, the above fact-finding assistance disposition by the court below shall be justified, and the above-mentioned approvals of the court below shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and the plaintiff shall not be deemed to have provided the obligation to pay the remainder by June 21, 1978, and it is just in comparison with the records of the court below's ruling that the plaintiff shall not be deemed to have provided the obligation to pay the remainder by June 21, 1978, and there is no evidence which misleads the facts

Point 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below presumed that the above two obligations were met simultaneously because the plaintiff's remaining payment obligation, the defendant's obligation to pay the purchase price, and the obligation to deliver land were fulfilled without lawful performance, and the above two obligations were not fulfilled. The defendant 2 paid the plaintiff the remaining 25,440,00 won to the plaintiff under the name of two defendants on June 14, 1978, and the defendant 2 received the registration of ownership transfer at the same time. If the contract is not performed by the date, the court below notified the plaintiff that the contract would be rescinded, such as the owner's resident registration address, the certificate of personal seal impression, and the proxy form, and it did not meet all necessary documents for the registration of transfer on June 21, 200 for the delivery of the above land, and it did not contact the plaintiff 2 with the plaintiff on June 21, 1978, but no contact with the plaintiff 1,000,000's office, and no contact with the plaintiff 2.

In order to acquire the right of rescission for reasons of the other party's delay of performance, if the period for performance indicated in the request for performance is determined as "within a certain period", in principle, if the person who requested performance continues to provide performance during such period, but if such period is determined as "specified date", it shall be sufficient if the person who requested performance provides performance on such date, and if such period or date is determined as such, the right of rescission shall be avoided without the other party's provision of performance, and if the contract is not rescinded within the prescribed period, it shall be deemed that the person who requested performance clearly expresses his intention of rescission in advance on the condition of suspension of performance at the same time or within the prescribed period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Da1508, Sept. 29, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1668, Jun. 16, 200).

All arguments can not be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)