logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1981. 5. 26. 선고 80다211 판결
[계약중도금][집29(2)민,4;공1981.7.15.(660) 13969]
Main Issues

The seller's duty to bear the expenses for the management and preservation of the object and the duty to pay the buyer's interest in the sale.

Summary of Judgment

In the sale of a specific object, if the object is not handed over to the buyer, the seller cannot pay the buyer the expenses for the management and preservation of the object or claim compensation for the amount equivalent to the interest of the purchase price during the period before the buyer pays the price.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 587 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na1438 delivered on December 26, 1979

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if the obligation of the buyer for the payment of the specific object was delayed in the sale of the object, the seller can receive the fruits arising from the object until the object is delivered to the buyer, and the expenses for the management and preservation of the object should also be borne by the buyer. On the other hand, the buyer does not have to pay the interest on the purchase price. Therefore, the seller cannot claim compensation for damages equivalent to the expenses for the management and preservation of the object or the interest on the purchase price during the period before the delivery of the object is made on the grounds of delay in the buyer's obligation to pay the purchase price. According to the records, since the real estate, which is the object of sale, is obviously not delivered to the plaintiff who is the buyer, even if the defendant suffered damages as alleged by the buyer due to the delay in the performance of the obligation of the buyer to pay the price, and therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's simultaneous performance defense

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-서울고등법원 1979.12.26.선고 79나1438
참조조문