The case where it can be deemed that the service of a duplicate soar is made with the peremptory notice of contract execution and the expression of intent of rescission.

The defendant's obligation of delivery of tin 200 tons of tin 200 tons until May 10, 1971, which was not proved by the defendant in Busan Jin 4 had been delayed payment due to the excess of the delivery date. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that the cancellation of the contract was notified prior to this case, so it can be deemed that the service of a duplicate of this case made up to the plaintiff against the defendant, which is the service of a copy of this case's delivery contract, the notice of the execution of this case's delivery contract, and the expression of intention of rescission was made. Thus, the above contract was lawfully rescinded at the time of the conclusion of the argument of the court below clearly that the delivery of a duplicate of this case made up to the defendant.

Article 544 of the Civil Act

East Asian Commercial Corporation

Darup Investment Business Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap4143) in the first instance trial

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In light of the above facts, Gap 1 and Eul 0, Eul 1 and Eul 1 and the defendant's 00 non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1.

Therefore, unless the defendant asserts that the above 200 tons of the above mix 200 tons had been provided by Busan Jin from May 10, 71, it shall be deemed that the above mix 200 tons had been delayed due to the Do on the delivery date. The plaintiff notified the contract performance on the date of the above 71 May 10, 71, and the non-party 3 of the exhibition witness notified the rescission of the above contract on June 10, 71, but the non-party 3 of the above assertion was insufficient to recognize the above assertion. However, the above contract between the plaintiff and the defendant can be deemed to have been delivered a copy of the above mix 200 tons so that the plaintiff expressed his intention of rescission in addition to the peremptory notice of the execution of this case's mix 200 tons to the defendant, so it shall be deemed that the above contract was lawfully rescinded at the time of the conclusion of the argument in the court below as at the latest since the delivery date of the copy of this case to the defendant.

The above contract between Won and the defendant was entered into under the condition that the defendant will take over 60% of 700 tons of dump 200 tons of dump dump 200 tons of dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dump, delivered by the non-party 1. Thus, the above contract between the defendant and the defendant was null and void because the contract between the plaintiff and the non-party 5 on October 6, 72 and the non-party 1's declaration of intention by fraud was cancelled. Thus, even if the above contract between the defendant and the non-party 4's representative or the non-party dump.

Therefore, this case's delivery contract is legally rescinded. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above amount of 1,800,000 won with the above amount of tin payment and the above amount of 1,80,000 won with the settlement key among the defendant, and the commercial delay damages with the rate of 6% per annum from June 10, 71 to the date of full payment. Thus, the judgment of the court below with the conclusion is just and without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. The appeal costs are assessed against the defendant who has lost the above amount. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-ho (Presiding Judge)