임대료 등
1. The Defendants shall deliver the attached list machinery to the Plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants.
1. Determination on the part of the claim in the event of extradition and impossibility of its execution
A. Since April 21, 2015, the Defendants possessed the attached list machinery owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant machinery”) since April 21, 2015, there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, insofar as the Defendants did not assert or prove the right to possess the instant machinery, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff.
B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that, in order to repair the machinery owned by them, “Seongwon 100P”, the said machinery was entrusted to the Plaintiff to repair them, and the said machinery was delivered to use them as substitute goods during the repair period. As such, the Defendants are merely obligated to deliver the instant machinery to the Plaintiff at the same time as delivery of “Seongwon 100P” machinery from the Plaintiff.
On the other hand, when each party's right to defense of simultaneous performance is related with each other's obligation on the basis of the concept of fairness and the principle of good faith, one party's right to defense of simultaneous performance, recognizing the relation in performance, and allowing the other party to refuse to perform his/her obligation when the other party's obligation is requested to discharge his/her obligation without the other party's performance or provision of performance.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da3285 Decided June 14, 2007). However, first of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff accepted the repair work of the aforementioned “Seo-si 100P” machinery from the Defendants (the Plaintiff itself is not a repairer), and furthermore, it does not appear that the Plaintiff’s duty to deliver the machinery “Seo-si 100P” machinery to the Defendants and the instant obligation to deliver the instant machinery to the Defendants are related to each other. Thus, the aforementioned simultaneous performance defense by the Defendants is without merit.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff against the Defendants.