공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
With respect to the instant case cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment at the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with
In addition, the plaintiff exercised his right of defense against uneasiness.
In other words, the Defendant contracted the construction of the instant land to D, which failed to pay the construction cost, and even though D discontinued the construction, it did not seek another contractor who will perform the construction following the discontinuance of the construction, and the price for the purchase of the instant land was not paid normally.
In this situation, even if the Plaintiff did not have the ability to pay the construction cost.
Therefore, the plaintiff has properly suspended the construction by exercising his right of defense against anxiety.
As such, since construction has been suspended for more than 150 days due to the defendant's responsible reasons, the plaintiff can rescind the contract of this case.
Judgment
Article 536(2) of the Civil Act provides that even if one of the parties to a bilateral contract has an obligation to perform in advance to the other party, “if there is a good reason to make it difficult for the other party to perform” has a right to defense of simultaneous performance, so-called “defensive defense” is stipulated.
In this context, “any significant reason for the performance of the other party’s obligation” refers to a change of circumstances in which the obligor, after the formation of the contract, is unable to receive any counter-performance due to such reasons as the obligee’s bad credit security and aggravation of property status, etc., and thereby, allowing the obligor to perform the preferential performance obligation under the original terms and conditions of the contract would be contrary to the principle of fair and good faith. Whether there is such reason or not should be determined
(Supreme Court Decision 201Da93025 Decided March 29, 2012). A, Articles 3, 7, and 10.