Whether a seller's delivery of a document required for transfer registration of shares in a sale of a specific land is the provision of performance according to the principal place of debt.

If a seller provides a buyer with a document required for the transfer registration of shares in the sale of a specified land, it cannot be said that the seller has provided a performance according to the original land of the obligation.

Article 460 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na2533 delivered on January 24, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

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

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the above-mentioned land substitution plan of 1: (1) 4 and 570 square meters as the defendant's above-mentioned land substitution plan of 2. 8 square meters, (2) 140 square meters and 430 square meters; (3) 140 square meters as the above-mentioned land substitution plan of 2; (4) 5 square meters as 8 square meters as the land substitution plan of 17 square meters; and (5) 20 square meters as the land substitution plan of 20 square meters as the above-mentioned land substitution plan of 47 square meters; and (4) 20 square meters as the above-mentioned land substitution plan of 17 square meters and 40 square meters as 5 square meters; and (4) 128 square meters as the land substitution plan of 20 square meters as the above-mentioned land substitution plan of 30 square meters and 50 square meters as the land substitution area of 40 square meters.

Examining the evidence at the time of the decision of the court below, the above fact-finding of the court below is acceptable and it cannot be determined that there is a violation of the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding.

Therefore, the issue is that it is difficult to adopt this case's sales contract based on the premise that it is not a specific land as an object but as an object of sale and purchase of shares, and it is returned to the legitimate fact-finding of the court below. It is without merit.

With respect to the second ground:

After the conclusion of a sales contract, the payment date may be postponed by an agreement between the parties, and in the sale of a specific land, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with the documents required for share transfer registration as at the time of the original judgment, and the Defendant provided performance according to the principal place of the obligation. In light of the evidence at the time of the original judgment, the lower court’s fact-finding (the fact-finding of the fact-finding on the premise that the agreement on the automatic cancellation of the sales contract was invalidated by extending the payment date of the purchase price to December 2, 1975, as shown in the reasoning of the lower judgment, is acceptable, including the fact-finding on the premise that the agreement on the automatic cancellation of the sales contract was invalidated (the fact-finding on the premise that the original court rejected the Defendant’s defense on the cancellation of the sales contract), and the Defendant did not provide performance according to the principal place of the obligation and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the cancellation of the sales contract as at the time of the original judgment.

The essay is groundless.

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.

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)