logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1971. 8. 31. 선고 71다1276 판결
[소유권이전등기][집19(2)민,267]
Main Issues

If one of the parties to a sales contract delivers the down payment to the other party, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the deliverr may rescind the sales contract by repaying the down payment until the other party commences the performance of the contract, and thereby the other party redeems a double the down payment.

Summary of Judgment

If one of the parties to a contract of contract delivers the down payment to the other party, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the deliverr may rescind the contract by repaying the down payment until the other party commences the performance of contract, and thereby the other party redeems a double of the down payment.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 565 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na69 delivered on May 11, 1971, 200

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by the respondent shall be examined together.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, when the plaintiff purchased the land of 2,196,40 won from the defendant on August 28, 1969, 500 won of the contract deposit, the court below decided to pay the remaining amount at the same time until October 15 of the year when the plaintiff received documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, and decided to pay 196,400 won even before the above payment was made by the defendant, and the plaintiff cannot receive a small amount of money from the defendant on September 13 of the year because the contract was agreed upon by the defendant, but the other party did not receive the above 196,400 won until the above 16th of the same month, the court below rejected the plaintiff's request for the cancellation of the contract deposit by document proving the contents of the contract, and it did not have any other reasons to acknowledge that the plaintiff had already received the contract deposit 100 times of the contract deposit by the plaintiff's expression of intention to deliver the remaining amount to the defendant before the above 100th of the contract deposit.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed in accordance with the consistent opinion of the participating judges, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court

arrow