A. On April 11, 2016, Plaintiff A supplied death and 938 gamblings to the Defendant.

The purchase price was set at KRW 50,00 per one domicile, and the Defendant supplied the death department supplied by the Plaintiff A to Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and made an oral agreement that the Defendant would receive the price from D.

(hereinafter the sales contract between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant is referred to as “the first sales contract of this case”).

Plaintiff

B on April 12, 2016, the Party supplied death and 936 boxes to the Defendant.

The purchase price was set at KRW 50,000 per one gambling, and the Defendant made an oral agreement that he will receive the price from D after he supplied the apology supplied by the Plaintiff B to D.

(2) Determination as to the ground of appeal No. 1 and the ground of appeal No. 1 and the ground of appeal No. 1 and the ground of appeal No. 1

A. In a juristic act attached to the relevant legal doctrine, if it is reasonable to view that, in a case where there is no fact indicated in the vice versa, it would not be performed unless it occurs, it should be viewed as a condition, and in a case where it is reasonable to view that the obligation should be performed even if not only when the indicated fact occurred but also when it is confirmed that the occurrence of the indicated fact does not occur, it shall be deemed as setting

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da50199, Oct. 14, 2010). In a case where the parties have determined the period for performance when an uncertain fact occurred, not only when such fact occurred but also when such fact becomes impossible, the period for performance should be deemed to have arrived.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu10579, Jun. 27, 1989).

Judgment

First of all, regarding the nature of each of the instant sales contracts, “the sales price shall be paid by receiving the price from D,” the Plaintiffs are the Defendant.