beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Grounds for the court's explanation in this judgment are as follows: No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and No. 4 of the judgment.
In addition to using paragraph (1) below, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Parts to be dried;
C. According to Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the Defendant has a duty not to prevent the lessor from receiving the premium from a new lessee, and if the lessor causes damages to the lessee due to the lessor’s violation, he shall compensate for the damages incurred therefrom. The Plaintiff’s notification of the rejection of the renewal of the instant lease to the Defendant and clearly expresses his intention to directly use the instant commercial building after being delivered to the Defendant is deprived of the Defendant’s opportunity to recover the premium, which is the lessee, and thus, cannot deliver the instant commercial building until the damages are paid.”
On the other hand, when each party's obligation is related to each other's obligation on the basis of the concept of fairness and the principle of good faith, one party's right to defense of simultaneous performance recognizes the relation of performance with each other's obligation, so that one party may refuse to perform his obligation when the other party's obligation is requested to discharge his obligation without the other party's performance or provision of performance.
In light of the purport of this system, even if each obligation to be borne by the parties is not an obligation inherent in the bilateral contract, in the event that both obligations are created from the same legal requirement and are of a quid pro quo meaning or are deemed to be performed periodically from the perspective of fairness, the right to defense of simultaneous performance can be acknowledged.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da291593, Jul. 24, 2018).