물품대금
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
3. The first instance.
1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of this court as follows. Thus, this court’s explanation is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(However, the court's second 13th 13th c "C" is raised to H). 2. The court's additional decision
A. The Plaintiff’s primary obligation of the instant service agreement is to obtain permission for development activities, and the Plaintiff fulfilled its obligation.
Therefore, even if the sale of the instant land was impossible, the Defendant Company cannot rescind the entire service contract of this case for this reason, since it was merely a default on incidental obligations.
B. In distinguishing a large number of contractual obligations from the principal obligation, regardless of the independent value of performance, the conclusion of the contract shall be determined by the reasonable will of the parties expressed or clearly expressed in the situation at the time of signing the contract, and such various circumstances as the content, purpose, and the result of failure shall be considered.
(2) According to the above evidence, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff entered into the instant service agreement with the Plaintiff for the purpose of recovering the cost for the pertinent period by changing the form and quality of the instant land which cannot be used as a warehouse site and selling it to a warehouse site, and at the time, the Plaintiff entered into the instant service agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company’s business site two times the aforementioned two times as seen earlier. The Plaintiff also concluded the Defendant Company’s business site.