The case holding that a notice of cancellation was effective as a peremptory notice for performance of obligation

If the seller performs his duty according to the sales contract and then notifies the buyer of the cancellation without the peremptory notice on the ground of the buyer's default, it does not take effect. However, the notification of cancellation is effective at least by demanding the buyer to perform the obligation, and then the seller files a lawsuit on the premise of the cancellation of the contract, and then files a lawsuit on the premise of the cancellation of the contract, and the soar is served on the buyer.

Article 544 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court of First Instance (70Ga180 delivered on July 1, 200)

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay 2,00,000 won to the plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The same shall apply to the order.

On August 24, 1969, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant and the non-party 1 co-defendant 1 of the court below to sell 300,000 won of pine trees at the high-gun delivery rate in Gangwon-do, and to receive 1,520,000 won as down payment on the day of the contract, and to receive 3,00,000 won of residual money under the name of the defendant for the payment of 1,520,00 won as down payment, the payer shall be 1,00,000 won for face value and 50,000,000 won for face value on September 20, 1969 and 1,50,000 won for value on September 25, 1969, and 190,000 won for value and 1,520,000,000 won for par value on October 20, 190, and 200,000 won for the above 00 won.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative filed a claim for the payment of KRW 2,00,000 for the remainder of KRW 3,000,000,000 for the remainder of the purchase and sale of raw timber as agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and Nonparty 2, and thus, the Plaintiff’s legal representative cancelled the above sale and purchase contract without the Defendant’s payment for the remainder of KRW 2,00,000,000 for the remainder of the purchase and sale of raw timber. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the existence of the sale and purchase contract cannot be withdrawn. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the remainder of the sale and purchase is unjust.

Since the authenticity of the portion of public document No. 2-1, 1,930, which is not disputed in its establishment, is acknowledged as the authenticity of the whole document No. 2-1,2-2, if the above witness and the witness Non-party 4 and the witness of the court below are combined with the whole purport of the testimony and the whole purport of the pleading between the plaintiff and the defendant, the original title of this case at the time of conclusion of the original title purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant cannot be taken out without the delivery certificate issued by the Gun on the north-west side of the Gun, which is within the jurisdiction of the Gun. Thus, the original title of this case cannot be taken out without the delivery certificate issued by the defendant, the purchaser of the check, and 1,930, which the plaintiff decided not to deliver to the defendant, and 200,000,000,0000 won, 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 30,000 won, 20,00 won, .

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff fulfilled his duty as a seller under the contract for the purchase and sale of raw timber, the plaintiff's right to cancel the contract was created on the ground of the termination body of the defendant, who is the buyer. Thus, the right to cancel due to the delay of performance, unless there is a special reason, shall be effective only after setting a reasonable period and exercising it, and the plaintiff did not immediately have the effect of rescission since the plaintiff notified the cancellation as of the date of the defendant's default. However, it is obvious in the records that the plaintiff filed a claim for restitution on the premise that the contract was cancelled for the first nine months, and the plaintiff filed a claim for restitution on September 22, 1969 on the premise that the contract was cancelled, but the subsequent claim was changed for the remainder of the purchase and sale. Thus, the notice of cancellation on September 22, 1969 was effective at least by the peremptory notice for the performance of the obligation against the defendant, and it is evident that the contract was delivered to the defendant on July 3, 1970.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim under the premise that the contract remains effective between the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed because there is no further need to determine the remaining points, and it is therefore groundless. Thus, the judgment of the court below which differs from this conclusion is unfair, so it is revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 89 and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of the total costs of the lawsuit.

Judges Lee Jung-gu (Presiding Judge)