At the time of occurrence of interest on the buyer's obligation for payment of price in the sale of specific objects.

Even if the buyer's obligation to pay the purchase price was delayed in the sale of a specific object, the buyer does not need to pay the interest of the purchase price until the object is delivered to the buyer. Thus, unless the object is delivered, the seller cannot claim for damages equivalent to the interest of the purchase price on the ground of delay in the buyer's fulfillment of obligation to pay the purchase price

Articles 397 and 587 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 93Na11081 delivered on February 10, 1995

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant concerning damages for delay shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Busan High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Even if the buyer's obligation to pay the purchase price was delayed in the sale of a specific object, the buyer does not need to pay the interest of the purchase price until the object is delivered to the buyer (see Article 587 of the Civil Act). Thus, unless the object is delivered, the seller cannot claim compensation for damages equivalent to the interest of the purchase price on the ground of delay in the buyer's performance of obligation to pay the purchase price (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da211 delivered on May 26, 1981).

In this case where the plaintiff, the seller of the contract for the sale and purchase of the factory of this case, and the plaintiff sought the payment of the remainder payment claim against the defendant, who is the buyer, for the execution of the contract, the court below's order for the payment of damages for delay to the remainder of the recognition without examining and confirming whether the object of the contract for the sale and purchase was delivered to the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 587 of the Civil Act, and it is obvious that this affected the judgment. Thus, the argument that points out this issue is justified (in the judgment of the court below, although the above non-party 1 stated that he did not transfer the right to operate the factory to the defendant, it is not clear whether the object of the contract for the sale and purchase was not delivered. And according to the records, it can be seen that the factory of this case was temporarily set up with the locks newly purchased by the defendant, and

2. Since the Defendant did not submit any ground of appeal as to the principal portion of the remainder, this part of the appeal is dismissed.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal as to damages for delay, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court below regarding damages for delay shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant shall be dismissed and it is so

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)