The time when the original obligation is extinguished in payment in substitutes; and

The payment in kind is a physical contract to be established when another performance is actually performed in lieu of the repayment of the original obligation, and if the payment is a transfer of ownership, the original obligation to be completed shall be extinguished.

Article 466 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da1940 delivered on August 22, 1978 (Kakad 11862, Supreme Court Decision 262Da303 delivered on August 26, 197, No. 466(1)49 of the Civil Code, No. 595-1104 delivered on August 22, 197)

Do governor-Appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 200

Seoul District Court Incheon Branch of the first instance court (75 Gohap109)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff requested the plaintiff to transfer ownership registration due to the transfer contract of December 30, 1970 with respect to 293 1,695 Hobbes, Dong-dong 2-dong 1,693, Dong-dong, Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon, to the plaintiff and deliver the above land.

The defendant sought the same judgment as the disposition.

In light of the above-mentioned evidence No. 18, 9,075, Defendant 1 and the above-mentioned No. 2 were buried at KRW 18,75,000, and the above-mentioned No. 2 were transferred to the Korea Agriculture Promotion Corporation on December 24, 197. The above-mentioned No. 1 and No. 2 were transferred to the Plaintiff on the 1,80,000, and there were 1,80 or an increase in the size of the reclaimed land to be acquired by the Korea Agriculture Promotion Corporation on the 1,60, 700, 197, 197, 207, 300, 197, 197, 197, 206, 300, 197, 196, 206, 30,000, 197, 37,000,000,000).

The defendant, among documentary evidence from the above, written evidence Nos. 6,7,8,9,11 using the seals assigned by the defendant company to the plaintiff, a judicial secretary, when entrusting the change of director of the defendant company, and the evidence No. 12 was written by duress. However, although the defendant alleged that the evidence No. 12 was written by duress, the above assertion is groundless since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, except the evidence that the defendant did not believe above.

According to the above recognition agreement, the plaintiff sought the execution of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership and the delivery of the claim to the defendant for the transfer of ownership from the non-party agricultural promotion corporation. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the above claim against the defendant against the defendant was extinguished because the plaintiff did not report the bond after the above emergency order was enforced, and the above transfer contract between the defendant was invalidated.

However, payment in kind means a physical contract that is established when another performance is actually performed in lieu of the repayment of the original obligation. Thus, the original obligation should be extinguished when the payment is transferred. According to the above facts and the purport of oral argument, it is apparent that the ownership transfer registration under the above agreement has not been made so far, in lieu of the payment of the above monetary obligation owed by the defendant company to the plaintiff. Meanwhile, it is clear that the ownership transfer registration under the above agreement has not been made so far. Meanwhile, in full view of the description of No. 16-17,19 (excluding the portion not trusted in the above), No. 7,20 of the evidence and the purport of oral argument, and No. 17 and No. 20 of the above statement and arguments, which are deemed true by the purport of the above agreement, the defendant company should have filed a return of the above monetary obligation to the plaintiff at the same time, not at the time of the promulgation of the above emergency order, but at the time of the transfer of the monetary obligation to the plaintiff's obligee at the same time due to the above urgent order.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim based on the above agreement still remains valid is dismissed because there is no need to determine the remaining part of the claim. Thus, since the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair, the plaintiff's claim is revoked, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.

Judge Jeon Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)