In case where the auction procedure becomes null and void, whether each party’s obligation to return has a simultaneous performance;

In a case where a bilateral contract becomes null and void and each party is required to return one another, if the obligation to return is enforced first only to either party, it would violate the principle of fairness and good faith, and thus, each party’s obligation to return constitutes a simultaneous performance relationship, and it is reasonable to apply Article 536 of the Civil Act mutatis mutandis. This legal doctrine also applies to a case where the auction procedure becomes null and void

Articles 536 and 549 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Seo-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

A person shall be appointed.

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na8299 delivered on September 30, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's decision that the successful bidder cannot acquire ownership because of the illegality of the auction procedure in this case is just, and the purport of rejecting the argument of the defendant in the lawsuit is included, and it is also acceptable to determine that the plaintiff's claim in this case does not constitute a violation of the good faith principle or an abuse of rights. Thus, the court below's decision does not contain an error of law

2. In a case where a bilateral contract becomes null and void and each party has to return one another’s acquisition, and if the obligation to return is enforced first only to either party, it would violate the principle of fairness and good faith, and thus, each party’s obligation to return is deemed to be in a simultaneous performance relationship, and thus, it is reasonable to apply Article 536 of the Civil Act mutatis mutandis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Da1241, Apr. 27, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 92Da45025, May 14, 1993). This legal doctrine applies to a case where the auction procedure becomes null

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's obligation to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership and the plaintiff's obligation to return the dividend are in a simultaneous performance relationship is correct, and there is no error of law such

3. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff did not have a duty to return the amount distributed prior to Echeon-gun and U.S. Mutual Saving and Finance Company, a tax claim holder, was not acquired by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not have a duty to return the amount distributed prior to the auction procedure in this case, and since the plaintiff was a bona fide beneficiary, the plaintiff did not have a duty to return the amount distributed in addition to interest.

There is no reason for all arguments.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)