Whether the defendant is dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below which accepted the claim for simultaneous performance by recognizing that the non-defense of simultaneous performance was a defense of simultaneous performance.

"The statement that the plaintiff would return the object of sale to the defendant and cancel the contract lawfully as the plaintiff's head" cannot be viewed as a defense of simultaneous performance, but it is wrong that the court below acknowledged the defendant as a defense. However, the plaintiff's wife who accepted the claim in return for the vehicle and the defendant's claim in return for the defense is a benefit to the defendant, so it is not possible to object to this.

Attorney Yoon Hong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Attorney Choi Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na1061 delivered on September 18, 1974

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's agent's grounds of appeal are examined.

Point 1

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is that the amount of minor customs duties, etc., recognized by the original judgment is not the purpose of the tort damage caused by tort, and it is clear that the plaintiff was charged with the money according to the agreement on the sales contract for the automobile of this case, and therefore there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to compensation for damages, and it is not reasonable to employ it on the premise that it is the legal disadvantage subject to compensation for damages.

Point 2

Although the original judgment acknowledged the defendant as having raised a simultaneous performance defense against this claim, the original judgment does not seem to be a simultaneous performance defense against the plaintiff's agent's "a statement that the plaintiff's agent would return the subject matter of sale to the defendant and would have to cancel the contract lawfully, such as the plaintiff's head, in order to cancel the contract," and it cannot be deemed as a substitute defense against the plaintiff's agent's "a statement that the defendant would return the subject matter of sale to the defendant and would have to cancel the contract." However, it is erroneous for the court below to acknowledge that the defendant had raised a defense, but the original court's wife who accepted the claim with the defendant in return for the vehicle is beneficial to the defendant who did not have raised the defense, so

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)