A. Whether the contract is rescinded for delay of performance and the procedure for peremptory notice is necessary (affirmative);

(b) Effect where a party fails to comply with an order to submit documents;

A. The rescission of a contract based on the delay of the contractor’s performance should be lawful where the contractor fails to perform the contract or the contractor fails to perform the contract in advance even though the contractor notified the contractor to perform the contract with a considerable period of time as well as the rescission of other contracts.

B. In a case where a party does not comply with the order to submit a document, the court does not purport that the allegations concerning the other party’s argument, that is, the nature, content, and authenticity of the document, should be recognized as true, and that the other party’s argument that the document intends to be proved by the document should be recognized as proved.

A. Articles 68 and 544 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Da1634 delivered on Nov. 30, 1971 (Gong1991, 24127). Supreme Court Decision 87Nu13 delivered on Jul. 7, 1987 (Gong1987, 1339) (Gong198, 590 delivered on Feb. 23, 198) 90Da13369 delivered on Aug. 27, 191 (Gong191, 2413)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Park Hun-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant]

Defendant-Appellant Lee Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na8655 delivered on February 18, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on September 15, 1990, the court below concluded a sub-subcontract for the construction cost of civil engineering and tin structure work among the brick construction works of the Uniform Training Institute contracted by the non-party YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 6,00,000 construction cost, from September 17, 1990 to October 30 of the same year, and paid the defendant a down payment of KRW 15,000,000 (the amount of KRW 20,000,000 in the original judgment seems to be a clerical error) on September 20 of the same year. The court below accepted the defendant's request for advance payment for the cancellation of the above construction work as advance payment on November 24, 190, and determined that the defendant did not lawfully cancel the above construction work from the same year 121.

Although the cancellation of a contract for work on the ground of the delay in performance of the contractor should be lawful when the contractor fails to perform the work or the contractor expresses that the contractor fails to perform the work in advance even though the contractor had notified the rescission of the contract for a considerable period of time, as well as when the contractor has notified the contractor to cancel the contract, the court below did not determine whether the cancellation meets the requirements for the cancellation, and decided that the contract was lawfully rescinded with the plaintiff's notification of cancellation for the reason of the defendant's default. However, according to the testimony of the witness, the witness 1 and the non-party 2, and the witness's partial testimony of the non-party 3, the defendant could not perform the construction work on the ground of the change in the balance of the construction work and the price of the stone and the price of the construction before the end of November 1, 199, unless the contractor is paid damages for the stone plant due to the change in the construction specification, the court below's decision was without merit since the defendant completed only a part of the construction work, and it did not affect the plaintiff's intent to perform the construction work.

2. Examining the evidence cited by the court below in comparison with the records, the court below's fact-finding as to the point of view of the theory of lawsuit is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law due to the misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence. There is no ground for appeal.

3. If the party fails to comply with the order to submit a document, the court shall admit that the other party's argument regarding the document, that is, the nature, content, and authenticity of the formation of the document, and that the other party's argument that the other party's argument that the document intends to prove is true, is not necessarily proved by the court's free evaluation. The issue of whether to acknowledge the alleged facts is based on the court's free evaluation. Thus, even if the court violated the order to submit a document by the court below regarding the construction statement prepared by the defendant and submitted to the plaintiff at the time of the above contract, it is recognized that the above statement of the defendant's argument is true and that the plaintiff's argument that the construction of the above tin structure was supplied with stone, and that the court's assertion that the plaintiff would be proved by the document cannot be recognized, and as long as the court below acknowledged the plaintiff's argument that is contrary to the defendant's argument by free evaluation, the court'

4. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)