beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay 11,600,000 won to the plaintiff.
B. The plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) other than the second part of the fourth part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) therefore, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part to be mard;
A. In the case of cancelling a contract due to the cancellation of a contract due to the non-performance of obligation, where the intention of non-performance in advance is expressed, the requirements for cancelling a contract are very alleviated in comparison with the cancellation of the contract at the time of the delay of performance because the highest and simultaneous performance does not require the provision for self-performance of obligation. Thus, in cases where the intention of non-performance is explicitly expressed, the intention of non-performance shall be clearly and ultimately indicated in case of recognizing implied intention of non-performance by considering various circumstances at the time of the contract or after the contract, except in cases where the intention
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da22971, Nov. 9, 2006). Whether it is apparent that the other party does not perform his/her obligation even if one of the parties provides performance should be determined on the basis of the time one of the parties requires the provision of performance.
(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da7204 delivered on August 24, 1993). The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had expressed its intent to refuse the performance of a sales contract, but the following circumstances revealed by the record: (i) the Defendant appears to have been in the Plaintiff, but the Defendant appears to have had the intent to maintain the contract that the Plaintiff had urged the Plaintiff to perform the obligation to supply investment funds; (ii) the Defendant was ultimately refusing to pay the remainder of its sales price on the ground that the Defendant had failed to perform the obligation to procure investment funds; and (iii) the Defendant has ultimately refused to pay the remainder of its sales price.