Cases that can not be deemed as a substantial grace period for cancellation of a contract.

After the date of the payment of the remaining amount has been postponed by August 31, 1977 under the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff again requested the defendant through the non-party to postpone the payment date by September 20 of the same year, and the defendant did not express opinion, but the non-party decided that the payment date of the remaining amount has been postponed by his own name, and that the non-party knew the plaintiff. In the case where the defendant sent to the plaintiff a notice of notification that if the remaining amount is not paid to the plaintiff by September 12 of the same year, the contract is terminated, the declaration of the termination of the above contract cannot be deemed reasonable in light of all the above facts, and at least by September 20 of the same year, it shall be deemed a reasonable period for its implementation.

Article 544 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da739 Delivered on April 27, 1976

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee, Attorney Song Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na1022 delivered on November 14, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant on June 28, 197 to purchase the forest land owned by the defendant at KRW 51,090,00 and the intermediate payment amount of KRW 19,90,000 on the agreed payment date as stated in its holding, and the agreed payment date for KRW 26,00 was August 28 of the same year, but the payment of the remaining amount was delayed by 97 years on the plaintiff through the non-party 2, who was the introduction of the sale contract, and the payment was delayed by 9,00,000 for the above 19,000 won for the above 19,000 won for the above 19,000 won for the above 19,000 won for the above 19,000 won for the above 19,000 won for the above 19,000 won for the above 19,000 won for the above reasons.

The decisions of the Supreme Court in the last place are not appropriate.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. The 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 Hah-hak (Presiding Justice)