(a) Requirements for the automatic rescission of a contract where there is an agreement that the contract shall automatically be rescinded if the buyer fails to pay the remainder by the due date for the contract of real estate sales; and

(b) If the seller has agreed to provide the documents required for registration to the person who wants by the buyer, and the buyer has not designated it, the seller shall provide them for performance;

C. Whether the defense of simultaneous performance can be deemed to include the allegation of cancellation or invalidation of a sales contract

A. In a real estate sales contract, even if the buyer fails to pay the price by the due date, the obligation of the buyer to pay the remaining price and the seller's obligation to register ownership transfer are in a simultaneous performance relationship, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the sales contract automatically is terminated only when the seller prepares documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer on the due date for the payment of the remaining price and provides the buyer with performance, such as informing the buyer of such documents, and makes the buyer enter into the buyer's delay of performance. Even if the buyer fails to pay the price by the due date, the sales contract cannot be deemed automatically terminated.

B. If the seller agrees to provide all of the registration documents by the time the balance is paid, the seller shall provide the buyer with the documents to enable the buyer to complete the registration of ownership transfer under his/her name, or, even if it fails to do so, to the extent that the buyer or his/her designated person can immediately complete the registration of transfer, by holding his/her seal impression at the place of performance, even if the buyer does not designate it by the

C. It cannot be deemed that the seller’s defense that the seller’s obligation to transfer ownership and the buyer’s obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase price are included in the simultaneous performance relationship.

A. Article 544(b) of the Civil Act; Articles 460 and 568(c) of the Civil Act; Article 536 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da15614 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 2514), Supreme Court Decision 91Da32022 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3240 delivered on November 27, 1990)

Plaintiff’s Attorney Lee Sang-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff

Defendant Kim Jin-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 92Na23642 delivered on November 19, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a real estate sales contract, even if the buyer fails to pay the price by the due date, the obligation of the buyer to pay the remaining price and the seller's obligation to transfer ownership registration are in a simultaneous performance relationship, barring any special circumstances, so the seller's obligation to pay the remaining price and the seller's obligation to transfer ownership registration shall be deemed to be terminated automatically only when the buyer prepares documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership on the due date for payment and provides the buyer with performance, and makes the buyer enter into the delay of performance, and even if the buyer fails to pay the due date, the sales contract cannot be deemed automatically terminated at the due date (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da15614 delivered on July 24, 1992).

The court below held that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on May 11, 190 that "the defendant shall repay the remainder and repay the documents necessary for the transfer of ownership to the plaintiff upon receipt of the remainder payment, and the defendant shall comply with the plaintiff's request, regardless of whose name the contract is held at the time of the sales contract on May 11, 1990, with the agreement that "the seal impression provides the plaintiff with the name of the plaintiff," and extended on July 20, 1990 as of September 10, 199, the remaining payment date of the remainder payment. If the plaintiff extended the payment date of the remainder payment as of September 10, 1990, it decided to waive the part payment, and the defendant also agreed on the whole of the registration documents until the payment date of the remainder payment to the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff did not perform the remainder payment by the due date of the delay payment of the remainder payment, the court below's decision is just and acceptable in light of the above legal principles and there is no error in the conclusion of the contract as seen.

2. In addition, if the defendant agreed to provide all of the registration documents until the payment date of the balance to the plaintiff, the court below held that even if the plaintiff did not designate it by the payment date of the balance, the defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the documents for the registration of ownership transfer under the plaintiff's name, or even if it did not reach such documents, he shall immediately complete the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff or his designated person, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant provided such performance. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and decision on this point are just and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit. In this case, the defendant cannot be deemed to have provided the plaintiff with the performance of his obligation on the payment date of the balance and caused the plaintiff to cause delay of payment. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the sales contract of this case cannot be deemed to have been invalidated or cancelled. There

In addition, according to the records, we affirm the fact-finding by the court below that the defendant cannot be deemed to have prepared the defendant's certificate of the personal seal impression for sale of real estate necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership on the remaining payment date, and if it is true that the fact-finding is true, the judgment of the court below that the defendant has a duty to prepare land transaction report certificate (the defendant's certificate on which the defendant's seal is affixed so that the plaintiff can report) on the remaining payment date does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the argument about this issue is without merit.

3. In light of the records, although the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that the defendant rejected the payment of the remaining amount, the court below's determination that the sales contract of this case cannot be deemed null and void or cancelled because the defendant did not provide the plaintiff with his own debt with the plaintiff's obligation of payment of the remaining amount, as seen earlier, as long as the court below's determination that the sales contract of this case cannot be deemed null and void or cancelled due to the defendant's non-performance of his debt with the plaintiff's obligation of payment

4. The defendant's defense that the contract of this case was cancelled or invalidated contains the defendant's obligation to transfer ownership and the plaintiff's obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase price. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's defense contains the defendant's obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase

In addition, barring special circumstances, if the purchaser claims and proves the fact of the sales contract, the seller is obligated to register the transfer of ownership, and if the seller does not receive the balance of the sale, the seller shall file a defense of simultaneous performance, and if the buyer did not pay the balance of the purchase and sale, the court can decide to pay the balance of the purchase and sale to the seller at the same time as the buyer receives the payment of the balance of the purchase and sale (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu2522, Nov. 27, 1990). Thus, there is no reason to hold any other argument.

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)