In the sales contract, it is evident that there is no intention of the buyer to pay the remainder of the contract and the seller cancel the contract.

In a bilateral contract such as a contract, where a seller intends to cancel a sales contract on the ground that the buyer has not performed his/her obligation for the remainder of the purchase price, the seller must perform his/her obligation in repayment of the buyer's obligation for the remainder of the purchase price, but it is evident that the buyer has no intent to perform his/her obligation in accordance with the principal contract for the remainder of the purchase price, barring special circumstances, the seller may cancel the contract immediately without offering to perform his/her obligation.

Article 544 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (71 Ghana6715) in the first instance trial

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The litigation costs after an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant will implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership on November 15, 1963 with respect to the plaintiff on November 15, 1963 about 19-232 Taecheon-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On November 15, 1963, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff’s buyer, the Defendant’s seller, and the Defendant’s 5-232 site in Yongsan-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, with the price of KRW 27,300 for 13,00 for 13,00 won for the said contract deposit and intermediate payment, and the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to pay the remainder of KRW 14,300 for 13,00 for the said contract deposit and intermediate payment to the Defendant by the delivery and redemption of documents related to the registration of ownership transfer of the said

However, the plaintiff's assertion was made at the place of preparation and payment after deducting KRW 10,300,00 from the above remaining 14,300,000, which the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant at the above remaining payment date, the amount of KRW 14,300,000 for purchase and sale of other land which the defendant would receive from the defendant. However, the defendant's obligation in simultaneous performance relation is not determined and the defendant's obligation has not been paid. Since the plaintiff deposits for payment of KRW 14,30,00 for the remaining amount on November 2, 71, 71, the defendant's obligation to respond to the claim, the defendant did not pay the above remaining amount of real estate purchase and sale, and therefore, the above sales contract was already terminated.

Therefore, if the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is valid and the seller wishes to terminate the contract on the ground that the payment of the remaining amount of the contract is not fulfilled by the buyer, it is necessary to first provide the buyer with performance of his obligation to pay the remaining amount of the contract. In such a case, the extent of offering the remaining amount of the contract is always unnecessary, and it is obvious that the purchaser's intention to pay the remaining amount of the contract is proportional to his intention to pay the remaining amount of the contract and his intention to pay the remaining amount of the contract, the seller may cancel the contract immediately with the purport of Article 544 of the Civil Act, unless there is any special circumstance. In light of the above, the plaintiff's assertion that the remaining amount of the contract was not fulfilled by the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's assertion that the remaining amount of the contract was not fulfilled by the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's assertion that the remaining amount of the contract was not fulfilled by the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 4's assertion that the remaining amount of the contract was made by the plaintiff.

Therefore, in full view of the above facts, the reason that the defendant was unable to perform the obligation to provide the plaintiff with related documents related to the registration of transfer of real estate ownership of this case to the plaintiff in repayment of the remaining debt of this case was attributable to the fact that the plaintiff had a debt to be deducted from the remaining debt of this case, and that there was a debt to be deducted from the purchase price of this case, and that the plaintiff had a house to provide only the remaining amount (4,300 won) to be deducted from the purchase price of this case, and that the above house of this case continues to be over one year after the above house of this case was over one year, the defendant prepared related documents necessary for the registration of transfer of real estate of this case and sought the plaintiff to pay the remaining amount of the remaining amount of the purchase price of this case, and there was a special circumstance that the plaintiff had performed the above remaining amount of the remaining amount of the purchase price of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's intention not to perform the obligation of cancellation of the contract of this case as to the plaintiff 16, without any justifiable reason.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff under the premise that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was legally deposited in payment of the remaining amount during the existence of the contract. Thus, the original judgment with the conclusion was well-grounded, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)