If, on the other hand, a party to a bilateral contract provides performance of his own obligation and demands the other party to discharge his obligation, the other party only performs performance of a part of the other party, and the right of rescission for the obligee who has made a peremptory notice.

If, on the other hand, the other party to a bilateral contract provides performance of his own obligation and demands the other party to discharge his obligation, the other party only performs a part of the other party to whom the peremptory notice was given, and if the other party does not perform the remaining obligation by the due date, the obligee who has given the peremptory notice shall obtain the right of rescission arising from the delay of performance.

Attorney Seo-Gyeong-Gyeong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Hu Young-ro Attorney Kim Yong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 74Na377 delivered on May 8, 1975

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

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

No. 1. The judgment of the court below that there is no evidence to view that the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration by the sale from the defendant against the defendant is a false transfer of registration due to the fictitious sale, and therefore, the issue is groundless.

Nos. 2 and 3, since the defendant did not submit a certificate of personal seal impression, a sale certificate, and a power of attorney at a fact-finding court as evidence and did not have prepared the documents on the date of performing his/her own obligation, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant did not prepare the documents, etc. on the date of performing his/her obligation. In a bilateral contract, if the parties to the bilateral contract were to have provided the other party with repayment and notified the other party to perform his/her obligation, the other party who was given the peremptory notice shall obtain the right of rescission due to delay of performance, and if the other party did not perform the remaining obligation for the extended period, the obligee who made the peremptory notice shall obtain the right of rescission due to delay of performance. Therefore, in this case, if the defendant made the preparation on January 31, 1969 for the transfer of registration and notified the other party to pay 10,000 won to the plaintiff, and if the other party did not pay 50,000 won after the lapse of such period, the defendant can rescind the contract without demanding payment again after April 27, 1969.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)