(a) The case that it is deemed that a two-time peremptory notice is a separate new one;

(b) If the quantity of the subject matter of sale is partially short, a seller's peremptory notice of performance, such as the total amount of the purchase (negative)

A. In a case where a seller issued a peremptory notice of performance that the sales contract will be automatically rescinded due to an excess of the performance peremptory deadline when he/she notified the seller of only the performance of the reduced remaining purchase and sale amount corresponding to the actual area of the subject matter of sale, but notified the seller of the performance of the total purchase and sale balance and the compensation for delay and litigation cost of a separate lawsuit, the latter shall be a new performance peremptory notice different from that of the claim amount and the highest amount.

B. In the event that a buyer can file a claim for reduction due to a lack of partial quantity of the subject matter of sale, the seller's refusal of the claim, the seller's request for full performance of the purchase price originally agreed upon, or there is no contractual obligation, or the demand for performance of excessive amount which is not in the concurrent performance relationship with the registration of ownership transfer is illegal, and therefore the cancellation of the contract premised on the legitimacy of the peremptory notice

a.B.Article 544 of the Civil Code. Article 574 of the Civil Code

B. Supreme Court Decision 79Da1948 delivered on March 11, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 80Da463 delivered on October 14, 1980

Plaintiff Kim Yong-han, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kang Shin-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Na6268 delivered on April 6, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the non-party who represented the plaintiff on July 12, 1981 as 1,23, and 3 parcels of 1,016 on the attached list 1,016 to be attached to the judgment of the court below (the above 3 parcels of 3 parcels of 1,000 won are indicated only as above without indicating their points) and concluded a sales contract to purchase 35,560,00 won per 360 won per 1,70 won on the ground that the non-party did not lawfully pay 14,00,000 won for the above 30th day of 8.1,00 won of intermediate payment to the plaintiff on August 1, 198, 198, and the defendant agreed to pay 1,000 won for the remaining 1,000 won of the above 3rd day after the above 20th day of sale and purchase of 3 parcels of 3 parcels of 88,000 square meters,2816.

However, according to the facts and records established by the court below, the notice of December 24, 1987 by the person's notification as of June 23, 1982 is not a new performance peremptory notice which is separate from the pre-sale peremptory notice as of June 23, 1982, but a reduced balance amount of 13,580,000 won corresponding to the real area of the pre-sale subject matter, and a delay damages and litigation expenses of separate lawsuits, and if the contract is not performed, it is different from the pre-sale peremptory notice as of December 31, 1987, which is the due date of performance peremptory notice that the contract would be terminated automatically. Thus, the first peremptory notice of performance as of December 24, 1987 is a new performance peremptory notice as of June 23, 1982, and the defendant's notification of performance under concurrent performance is more than the pre-sale peremptory notice as of June 24, 1987.

In addition, where a purchaser can file a claim for reduction due to a lack of part of the quantity of the object to be sold, the seller's refusal of the claim for full payment of the purchase price under the original contract, or the demand for full payment of the purchase price under the contract, or for performance of excessive amount that is not in the relationship with the registration of ownership transfer, is illegal and thus the cancellation of the contract under the premise that the highest price is lawful shall not take effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Da1948, Mar. 11, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 80Da463, Oct. 14, 1980; 80Da463, Oct. 14, 1980; 13,580,000 won corresponding to the actual area, and even if the plaintiff voluntarily refused the plaintiff's demand for reduction of the purchase price under the contract, and the plaintiff's expression of intent to cancel the contract and the obligation for late payment from the date following the date of the payment to the contract and the land ownership claim are unlawful.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded after the lapse of December 31, 1987, which was set by the notice of performance of December 24, 1987, for a considerable period of time set by the defendant's peremptory notice as of June 13, 1982, on the premise that the plaintiff was suffering from delay of performance, unlike this opinion, and affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the rescission of contract, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the grounds for appeal pointing this out are the grounds for reversal of Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)