(a) Whether a purchaser has the right to refuse payment of the purchase price, equivalent to the secured amount of the real estate purchased at the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage;

B. Whether a buyer is liable for delay in the payment of part payments where the remaining payment date has elapsed without the seller’s provision of the ownership transfer registration documents among the real estate buyer’s payment of part payments (negative)

(a) Unless otherwise stipulated in a real estate sales contract, where the purchaser is likely to obtain full transfer of ownership due to the registration of the establishment of a collateral security right on the real estate concerned, he/she may refuse to pay an amount equivalent to the amount of the collateral security on the registration until the registration of the cancellation of the collateral

B. Even if the buyer did not perform the part payment for which he is obligated to perform the contract, if the payment date for the part payment and the remainder are not paid until then, and the seller’s transfer registration documents required for ownership transfer registration at the same time with the remainder payment are provided without being provided until then, the buyer’s payment of the part payment and the remainder payment and the seller’s provision of the documents required for ownership transfer registration are in a simultaneous performance relationship. Thus, the buyer is not liable for delay of payment for the failure to pay the part payment at that time.

a.B.Article 563(b) of the Civil Code

B. Supreme Court Decision 70Da344 delivered on May 12, 1970, 80Da268 delivered on April 22, 1980

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na2091 delivered on March 17, 1987

The case shall be reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that the above contract was concluded to sell the above real estate to the defendant at KRW 70,00,000, and that the defendant had no effect on the date of the above contract, and that the intermediate payment was cancelled at KRW 30,000 on May 18 of the same year, and that the defendant would not pay any balance to the defendant for the remaining 30,000,000 upon the request of the defendant for the cancellation of the above contract and the intermediate payment at the expiration of 7,000,000 if the above contract was concluded at the time of the above cancellation of the contract, and that the defendant would not pay any balance to the defendant for the remaining 1,00,000,000 won after the expiration of the contract and the intermediate payment at the expiration of 8,00,000,000,000 won which were not yet established on the date of the above contract. The defendant's assertion that the above contract was concluded at the expiration of 1,6,0,06,000,0,00,00.

However, unless otherwise stipulated in a real estate sales contract, unless there is a special agreement, the buyer may refuse to pay an amount equivalent to the collateral amount on the registration until the cancellation registration of the right to collateral security is made, and even if the buyer did not perform an advance payment with the obligation to pay the remainder before the expiration date of the contract, if the due date for the seller's transfer registration of ownership at the same time with the remainder payment without the payment due to the expiration of the contract, the buyer's payment of the intermediate payment and the remainder payment are in simultaneous performance relationship with the buyer's payment of the remainder payment and the seller's transfer registration of ownership. From that time, the buyer is not liable for delayed payment of the above part payment (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da344 delivered on May 12, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 80Da268 delivered on April 22, 1980). Thus, the buyer's opinion that affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)