(a) In case where the buyer fails to pay the price by the date of payment of the remainder, the contract is automatically rescinded, and whether the seller shall provide the performance of his/her obligation on the date of payment of the remainder in order to automatically cancel the contract;

(b) The case holding that there are special circumstances to deem that a special contract was made to invalidate the contract by itself without asking whether the seller satisfies the documents required for registration of transfer, in the case of an agreement referred to in paragraph (a).

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 remainder and the seller's obligation to register ownership transfer has a simultaneous performance relationship, barring special circumstances, the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller's obligation to register ownership transfer at the due date for the payment of the remainder is terminated automatically only when the seller prepares documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer on the due date for the payment of the remainder and provides the buyer with performance, thereby making the buyer enter into the buyer's delay of performance. However, even if the buyer had agreed on the due date, the contract shall not be deemed automatically terminated.

B. The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the sales contract was automatically invalidated due to the buyer's failure to pay the balance by the due date for the payment of the balance under the agreement as stated in Paragraph (a) where there are special circumstances to deem that the seller made a special agreement to invalidate the contract by itself without asking whether or not the seller satisfies the requirements for registration of ownership transfer

Article 544 of the Civil Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 91Da32022 Decided October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3240). Supreme Court Decision 88Da28891 Decided July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1294) decided July 24, 1992 (Gong192, 2514) 93Da7777 Decided December 28, 1993 (Gong194, 509)

Ampha Corporation (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na20308 delivered on December 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party, the representative director of the plaintiff company, and the defendant concluded a sales contract of this case on December 27, 1989. The non-party, who is the defendant, purchased 53,760,000 won per contract, and the non-party, who is the purchaser of this contract, paid 50,760,000 won to the non-party on January 27, 1990. If the above non-party, was unable to pay any balance on the fixed date of the sales contract for the remaining 9 days on the ground that the non-party's purchase and sale contract was non-party 1 and the non-party was non-party 2's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's remaining payment.

Examining the evidence prepared by the court below according to the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified and it cannot be said that there is an error of misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. In the 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 remainder and the seller to transfer ownership registration are simultaneously performed, barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, the seller's obligation to pay the remainder and the seller to pay the remainder at the due date for the payment of the remainder is automatically terminated only when the seller prepares documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer on the due date for the payment of the remainder and provides the buyer with performance such as informing the buyer and makes the buyer enter into the delay of performance, and even if the buyer fails to pay the remainder at the due date, the contract shall not be deemed automatically rescinded.

However, if the facts of this case are as determined by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the non-party, who was responsible for the non-performance of obligations more than several times and entered into the sales contract of this case again under the name of the plaintiff company whose representative director is the representative director, as the intent to pay the balance to the defendant by January 31, 191, which is the payment date of the balance under the contract, and that if the balance is not paid by the day, the non-party would be responsible for the disadvantage that the sales contract of this case is automatically cancelled by the non-performance itself. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the above special agreement was prepared separately from the sales contract of this case, because the court below did not ask the defendant whether the contract of this case is required for the transfer registration of ownership, and there is a special circumstance that the non-party made a special agreement to automatically cancel the contract by failing to pay the balance by January 31, 191, which is the payment date of the balance (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da2327, Dec. 27, 1992).

3. 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)