logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1962. 5. 31. 선고 4294민상1293 판결
[가등기말소등기절차이행][집10(2)민,391]
Main Issues

The defendant's failure to deliberate and decide on the simultaneous performance defenses

Summary of Judgment

In order to seek the performance of the reconciliation clause in a lawsuit, a defense of simultaneous performance may be raised.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 536 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Kim Jong-soo

Defendant-Appellant

United Kingdom of Great Britain

Judgment of the lower court

Daejeon High Court Decision 61No422 delivered on August 22, 1961, Daejeon High Court Decision 61Na422 decided August 22, 1961

Text

The original judgment shall be reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The defendant's grounds of appeal are as shown in the annexed appellate brief attached to it.

The court below held as to the ground of appeal No. 1 on the ground that (1) the defendant, in a separate case between the original defendant and the original defendant, accepted the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of provisional registration on the ground that (2) the defendant's deposit for repayment of the opposite debt to the plaintiff's owner pursuant to Paragraph 2 of this Article and the defendant's claim for cancellation of the provisional registration for return of the real estate was rejected by the end of June 1959, and at the same time, when the defendant did not perform his obligation, he received the confession from the defendant and executes the procedure for transfer registration of ownership of the above real estate. (2) If the defendant did not perform his obligation, the plaintiff paid the 600,000 US dollars to the defendant and 45,000 US dollars to the defendant, and at the same time, he did not deliver the 00 US dollars to the defendant by the due date on the ground that the defendant did not exercise his obligation to repay the real estate at the same time under Paragraph 1 of this Article, the court below held that there was no error in the plaintiff's holding that the plaintiff's right of simultaneous compromise 18.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in the court below in order to decide again on the remaining grounds of appeal and to decide again as per Disposition.

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags

arrow