Method and degree of offering performance for the seller of real estate to delay the buyer's performance;

Articles 460 and 544 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 93Da777 delivered on December 28, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 509) Supreme Court Decision 95Da40397 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 507) Supreme Court Decision 96Da17738 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2658), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da6053, 6060, 6077 delivered on May 8, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 1356)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Yun, Attorneys Kim Han-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The case where the plaintiff and the defendant are involved in the project

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na84580 decided August 17, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's articles of incorporation Article 42 (4) of the defendant's articles of incorporation provides that the amount of cash liquidation for a person who fails to apply for parcelling-out or who has withdrawn an application for parcelling-out shall be calculated by calculating the arithmetic average of the values appraised by two or more appraisal business entities recommended by the head of the Si/Gun, and the plaintiffs may apply for the payment of liquidation money calculated in accordance with the above articles of incorporation, and it is appropriate that the amount should be calculated by calculating the arithmetic average of the values appraised by the appraisal corporation on the date of the case of the appraisal corporation, the corporation, the Gyeong

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In a bilateral contract, the degree of offer to be made by the parties can be reasonably determined as not violating the principle of trust and good faith depending on the time and specific circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Da40397, Dec. 22, 1995; 95Da40397, Dec. 22, 1995). The seller's obligation to register the seller's transfer of ownership and obligation to pay the buyer's remaining purchase price in concurrent performance are not a result of delay of performance when both parties do not provide performance. For making the buyer a delayed performance as a result of the delay of performance, documents necessary for registering the transfer of ownership are actually provided or even if not, it becomes a peremptory notice to the buyer after preparing the documents at the place of performance and receiving them (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da7777, Dec. 28, 1993; 2000Da6786, Jul. 37, 1996). 602, etc., the seller can receive the documents at intervals of performance at any time.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that: (a) based on the adopted evidence, Plaintiff 1, Nonparty 1, and Plaintiff 2 kept all documents, etc. necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership in the office of Nonparty 2 certified judicial scrivener; (b) notified the Defendant of the fact of custody and the receipt of the above documents, etc.; (c) notified the Defendant of the payment of settlement money; (d) continued to be received; (e) kept the above documents, etc. in the office of Nonparty 2 certified judicial scrivener; and (e) on May 19, 2012, Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 1 were removed from the apartment of this case on May 15, 2012, and (e) notified the Defendant of the fact that they were removed from the apartment of this case on June 1, 2012; and (e) notified the Defendant of the performance of the obligation to transfer ownership; and (e) the Defendant provided the settlement money from 20% of the following day to 20% of the obligation to transfer the apartment; and (e.

C. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of damages for delay.

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)