Standard for determining whether the father attached to a juristic act is a condition precedent or not fixed time limit;

Articles 147 and 152 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24215 Decided August 19, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1870) Supreme Court Decision 2010Da50199 Decided October 14, 2010

Plaintiff (Law Firm Chang, Attorneys Park Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2012Na6637 Decided February 21, 2013

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a juristic act attached to an associate officer, it shall be deemed as a condition when it is reasonable to deem that a debtor does not perform his/her obligation unless the facts indicated in the associate officer have occurred, and where it is reasonable to deem that the debtor should perform his/her obligation even when the facts indicated have occurred, as well as when the facts indicated have become final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that the establishment of the indicated facts has become final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da24215, Aug. 19, 2003; 2010Da50199, Oct. 14, 2010).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, after citing the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is acknowledged that the defendant's obligation to complete the registration of transfer of ownership of the first floor, the first floor, the second floor among the second building of this case to the plaintiff and the non-party 1 pursuant to Article 2 (4) of the conciliation provision of this case, was a condition suspending the plaintiff and the non-party 1 from taking out a loan of KRW 1 billion from a financial institution as collateral for the second building of this case and paying KRW 500 million to the plaintiff and the non-party 1, and the plaintiff and the non-party 1 to pay their debts to the plaintiff and the non-party 1. Further, the defendant and the non-party 2 did not have obtained a loan of KRW 1 billion from a financial institution as collateral for the second building of this case, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant did not have obtained a favorable claim of this case (the non-party 2 of this case's second floor of this case's building of this case's second floor of this case's building without holding.

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)