근저당권말소
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The judgment below
The term "16% per annum" in paragraph (2) of the order shall be reasons.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the lawful argument regarding the termination notice
A. In principle, a continuous contractual relationship does not recognize the termination of a contract on the grounds of change in circumstances.
However, the contract may be terminated exceptionally in cases where a significant change occurs in circumstances that the parties could not have predicted at the time of the contract formation, such change occurs due to reasons not attributable to the party who wants to terminate the contract, and where the binding force of the contract is recognized, the result that is obviously contrary
Here, “ modified circumstances” refer to objective circumstances that served as the basis for the formation of a contract, and does not refer to subjective or personal circumstances of a party.
Therefore, even if one party suffers losses as it is impossible to achieve the intended purpose of the contract due to a later change in circumstances that were not the basis for the formation of the contract, it cannot be deemed that recognizing the binding force of the contract is contrary to the good faith principle.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da13637, Sept. 26, 2013). (B)
After April 3, 201, the lower court: (a) concluded a disease control measure against foot-and-mouth; (b) had continued transactions in accordance with the instant consignment contract by slaughter and processing entrusted to the Defendant, and (c) in fact, the Plaintiff processed 30,52 heads of pigs at the time when the number of pigs slaughtered was rapidly reduced due to the foot-and-mouth disease in 201; (c) the restriction on movement was revoked as of February 16, 201; and (d) it cannot be deemed that the instant consignment contract was concluded on the premise that only pigs raised by the Defendant in the inside and outside of the Dong region was entrusted to D; and (d) purchase of pigs in the inside the Dong area that the Defendant entrusted the slaughter processing to D, even before the outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease.