1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. On December 27, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 220 million (the contract deposit of KRW 22 million shall be paid at the time of the contract and the balance shall be paid on February 28, 2013) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant housing”); and (b) paid the down payment of KRW 22 million to the Defendant.

In February 28, 2013, the remaining payment date of the Plaintiff, and transferred the instant house to the Defendant, but the existing lessee of the instant house did not deliver the instant house to the Defendant and the Plaintiff did not create any balance.

While the Defendant did not deliver the instant house, the Defendant expressed its intention to refuse to implement the instant lease contract with the briefs dated June 14, 2014, stating the Plaintiff’s maximum declaration of intent to perform the Plaintiff’s obligation, as the briefs dated June 30, 2014. As such, the Plaintiff, on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay in performance, is released by the delivery of the instant appellate brief on the grounds of the Defendant

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease contract was cancelled on the ground of nonperformance at the first instance court, and the cause of the claim was modified as above in the first instance trial. Therefore, pursuant to Article 548 of the Civil Act, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 22 million and the damages for delay thereof, with the restitution to its original state.

2. Determination

A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the non-performance due to the defendant's reasons attributable to the court are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasons, except for the defendant's dismissal as the defendant's "the plaintiff" under the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

B. If both parties' obligations are simultaneously in a bilateral contract as to the delay of performance, even if the due date for one party's obligations arrives, the other party's obligations are not liable for the delay of performance until the other party's obligations are discharged. Thus, Supreme Court Decision 201.7.10