If both parties to a bilateral contract extend to the time during which the fulfillment is due, and the method of cancellation of the contract;

If both parties to a bilateral contract have agreed upon the fixed date for performance, the contract shall be deemed to have no agreement on the date for performance, and in such cases, if one of the parties has made the other party a delay of performance, and if it is intended to cancel the contract for such reason, the other party shall be notified of the performance of his/her obligation and then the other party shall be notified of the performance.

Article 544 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1644, 1645 delivered on October 5, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1597 delivered on November 5, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 544(18)448 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court (74Gahap466)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,400,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from the next day after the service of gushes up to the next day after the full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The original judgment is the same as the cancellation and entry of the purport of the claim.

On November 28, 1973, the defendant supplied 4 x 4 4 x 400 dyp products to the plaintiff by no later than December 30 of the same year with gold 2,800 won per dypbles (500 won per dypouss) between the plaintiff on November 28, 1973, and the third 2 dypbles supply contract with the plaintiff to deliver 300 dypbles per dypouss to the plaintiff without any quantity fixed, and there is no dispute between the parties concerned. The facts of the contract between the plaintiff and the non-party 1's testimony that the authenticity is established by the non-party 1, the evidence 2-1, and 2 of the judgment below, the testimony of the non-party 2 and non-party 3 of the trial witness, the delivery place of the above dypbles products shall be 00 dypums to the plaintiff as the above contract deposit per 00-day.

The plaintiff's representative asserts that the above contract was cancelled by the plaintiff's declaration of intention on March 26, 1974 that the above contract was not delivered by the non-party 1 even after the expiration of the agreed period, and that the above contract was ordered to pay the above intermediate payment of KRW 200,000 and KRW 1,400,000, which is a double payment contract deposit, to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's failure to deliver the above mass product to the plaintiff by the above delivery deadline is without dispute between the parties and the above non-party 1's testimony that the above contract was delivered by the non-party 1's witness's testimony that the above contract was not delivered by the non-party 3, and that the above contract was cancelled by the non-party 1's declaration of intention on March 26, 1974. The plaintiff's assertion that the above contract was cancelled by the non-party 1's testimony that the above contract was delivered to the defendant without any justifiable reason and there is no evidence that the other party's delivery of the above contract was no additional delivery.

The plaintiff's attorney next, although the plaintiff urged the defendant to deliver the above tamper product after the expiration of the above delivery period, the delivery contract of this case was terminated as a delivery date of a duplicate so that it can be made up, or the plaintiff notified the defendant on October 7, 1974 that he will deliver the above tamper product by October 20 of the same year, and if the delivery contract of this case is not performed within the above period, the defendant did not perform it within the above period, but the delivery contract of this case was terminated due to the defendant's failure to perform it. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff provided the defendant with the payment of the remaining tamper product as mentioned above, the above assertion is groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection, which is based on the premise that the delivery contract of this case was cancelled due to the defendant's fault, is without merit, and this conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, so it is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the burden of appeal cost.

Judge Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)