(a) Whether the performance of an obligation and the return of a bill are simultaneously performed in cases where a bill is issued for securing the performance of an obligation (affirmative);

(b) Validity of a deposit for repayment on condition of any consideration in relation to simultaneous performance (=effective)

(a) Where a bill is issued for securing the performance of an obligation, the performance of an obligation and the return of a bill shall be in the relationship of simultaneous performance;

(b) Payment deposits shall be valid on condition of any consideration in relation to simultaneous performance.

a.B. Article 536 of the Civil Code. Article 475 of the Civil Code. Article 487 of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 69Da144 delivered on April 22, 1969 (No. 17 ② 41 delivered on December 30, 1969) 70Da2042 delivered on October 23, 1970 (No. 1773 delivered on October 26), Supreme Court Decision 78Nu378 delivered on October 30, 1979 (Gong1980, 12350) (Gong1321, 132 delivered on December 14, 1982) 84Da777 delivered on April 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 316)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na35132 delivered on January 17, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In its reasoning, the judgment below concluded a sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to sell the real estate of this case to the defendant KRW 120,00,000,000, and determined that the plaintiff received KRW 20,000,000 from the defendant as part of the above sales price, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above sales contract was concluded by the defendant's coercion or deception, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and did not accept the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay KRW 60,00,000 out of the remaining sales price until April 13, 1989 as well as that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant should pay KRW 60,00,000 among the remaining sales price of this case to the plaintiff until April 13, 1989. Based on this evidence, the court below's determination that the remaining payment period of KRW 100,00,000 was not accepted on December 30, 1989.

In addition, even if the court below erred by rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the sales contract was rescinded due to the delay of the Defendant’s intermediate payment obligation, this part is nothing more than an additional judgment, and eventually, it is nothing more than an assertion in the grounds of appeal that does not affect

The record shows that the promissory note of this case was issued for securing the performance of the obligation, and if it was issued for the purpose of securing the performance of the obligation, the discharge of the obligation and the return of the bill are in a concurrent performance relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 64Da1030, Dec. 15, 1964; 69Da144, Apr. 22, 1969; 70Da2042, Oct. 23, 1970; 70Da1061, Sept. 22, 1970; 71Da2569, Feb. 22, 1972; 73Da1607, Feb. 12, 1974; 308Nu4787, Oct. 37, 1979; 2007Da4878, Feb. 4, 1977).

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