(a) The case holding that the sales contract was lawfully rescinded by declaring the intention of rescission to the Party A, in case where the co-owner A entered into the sales contract as the representative of the other co-owner A and the other co-owner A

B. Where the party made a speech or behavior on the premise that the contract was not rescinded after the contract was lawfully rescinded, its impact on the already rescinded contract

(a) The case holding that the sales contract was lawfully rescinded by expressing intention to cancel the contract to Gap, where the co-owner Gap entered into the sales contract as the representative of the other co-owner Gap and the other co-owner Eul;

B. Even if the parties made a speech and behavior on the premise that the sales contract was not rescinded upon lawful rescission, it cannot be said that the sales contract was not rescinded unless it is acknowledged as a new agreement to reinstate the sales contract of this case.

(a)Article 543(a) of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu971 delivered on April 28, 1987 (Gong1987, 865) (Gong1077 delivered on July 8, 1980)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants (Attorney Lee Won-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na32680 delivered on May 3, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when entering into a sales contract for the forest of this case between the plaintiffs and the defendants on July 10, 1986, the court below determined that, within 30 days from the date of entering into the contract, the defendants, the seller, have changed the form and quality of the forest of this case into the land site, but if they fail to perform this contract, the plaintiffs cancelled the sales contract of this case and agreed to compensate the plaintiffs for damages. In July 23, 1986, even though they agreed to extend the land category and the change of form and quality to the payment period by 10 days, the defendants failed to perform this within the extended period, and the defendants failed to perform this within the extended period.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles.

(2) The issue is that the seller of the forest of this case is the defendants, and the plaintiffs expressed their intent to cancel the contract only to the defendant 1 on August 25, 1986, and thus the cancellation is not effective. However, as the court below duly determined, the defendant 1 entered into the contract of this case as the representative of defendant 2, who is another co-owner of the forest of this case, and therefore, the plaintiffs' declaration of termination against the defendant 1 is legitimate and there is no argument.

(3) The plaintiffs' declaration of termination on August 25, 1986 that the sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded. Thus, even if the defendants' speech and behavior was made on the premise that the sales contract of this case was not rescinded, as seen in the theory of lawsuit, it cannot be said that the sales contract of this case was not rescinded unless it is acknowledged as a new agreement that had already been rescinded to restore the sales contract of this case.

In addition, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs' expression of intent to cancel the contract of this case is null and void, and cannot be said to have any impact on the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, all appeals are 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-won