(a) Where it is difficult to regard the meaning of the sale and purchase designated by the quantity under Article 574 of the Civil Act as the sale and purchase of land;

B. Whether a seller may rescind a contract without any provision or peremptory notice of his/her own obligation in cases where the buyer requires the seller to perform excessive obligations after the date of performance has lapsed (affirmative)

A. The sale and purchase of volume under Article 574 of the Civil Act refers to the case where the parties set the price based on the volume of the specific goods, which is the object of the sale, by setting up a proposal to the effect that the specific goods have a certain quantity. As such, in the sale and purchase of land, the subject land was assessed as a whole even if the object is specified in accordance with the ordinary number on the registry, and the calculation of the purchase price was made in accordance with the usual number of land between the parties. If it appears that it was a tool to specify the subject land and to determine the price, it cannot be deemed that

B. In a real estate sales contract, which is a bilateral contract, where the buyer wants to perform excessive obligations to the seller when the date of performance exceeds the date of performance, the seller shall be deemed to have already expressed his/her intention to perform his/her obligations, and the contract may be rescinded even without providing for the performance of his/her own obligations or peremptory notice.

(a) Article 574 of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu7266 delivered on May 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1242) 90Da15433 delivered on April 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 1346) 91Da13120 delivered on August 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2407) B. Supreme Court Decision 81Da968 delivered on April 27, 1982 (Gong1982, 528)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na5619 delivered on February 12, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

(1) The sale and purchase stipulated in Article 574 of the Civil Act refers to the case where the parties set the price based on the volume of the specific goods which are the object of the sale and purchase at a certain quantity. As such, in the sale and purchase of land, the subject land was assessed as a whole even in a specific case in accordance with the ordinary number on the registry, and the calculation of the purchase price was made in a way to specify the subject land between the parties and to determine the price, it cannot be deemed that it was a sale to designate the volume of the goods to turn on (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da15433, Apr. 9, 191; 91Da13120, Aug. 23, 1991).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 25, 1989 between the plaintiff and the defendants, the court below recognized the sale contract for the land of this case on April 25, 1989 as the sale price of this case, and rejected the sale price of this case on several occasions by calculating the total amount of 20 parcels, including 18 parcels in the registry, 18 parcels in Si, Si, Si, ( Address 2 omitted), and 264, a total of 570,00 won prior to Si, as 570,00 won, and the sale price of this case is calculated as 50,000 won per 40,000 won. The land of this case is composed of 50,000 won adjacent to each other, and 60,000 won and 50,000 won, and it is later determined that the sale price of this case was calculated as 60,000 won per 7,000 won and 40,000 won, respectively, as the land register was combined.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and if the facts are the same as the above, it did not show that the actual average amount of the land in this case was expressed about the sale of this case, and it is also deemed that the sale price was calculated based on the ordinary price calculated by the ordinary number of the public account book and that the sale price was merely a part of the way to specify the land and to determine the price, so the court below's determination that the sale of this case is not a sale of the quantity designated,

(2) In a real estate sales contract which is a bilateral contract, where the buyer requires an excessive performance of obligations without contractual obligations for the seller when the date of performance elapses, the seller shall be deemed to have already expressed his/her intention to perform his/her obligations and may rescind the contract without any provision of his/her own obligations or peremptory notice (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da968, 81Da476, Apr. 27, 1982). According to such purport of the court below, after the agreed payment date of the real estate sale and purchase was expired, the court below decided on August 9, 1989 that the Defendants’ payment of the remaining amount of the purchase and sale amount calculated on the basis of 4,724 square meters of the total amount of the purchase and sale amount, which was lawfully notified by the Defendants to pay the remaining amount of the purchase and sale amount of 1,112,680,000 won for reasons that the Defendants did not have any intent to pay the remaining amount of the purchase and sale amount for the reasons that the Defendants did not have any intent to pay the remaining amount of 1130 square meters of land.

In addition, if the circumstances leading up to the cancellation of the sale and purchase of this case are the same as above, there is a few theories, and thus, in cancelling the sales contract on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s non-performance of the obligation to pay the remaining price, the argument that the Defendants erred in the judgment of the court below that recognized that the Defendants lawfully performed the obligation to remove or destroy the building, which is one of their opposing obligations, such as the obligation to perform the procedure for removal or destruction of the building, the obligation to deliver the required documents for transfer of ownership, or the obligation to deliver the written consent for use of the site necessary for

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)