beta
Main Issues
Whether a contract for payment in kind is void or not;
Summary of Judgment
Whether a contract for payment in kind is void or not.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 90 and 482 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff-Appellee
Mackedi
Defendant-Appellant
Kim Yong-dried
Judgment of the lower court
Daegu District Court Decision 57No419 delivered on December 18, 1957
Reasons
The court below acknowledged that the value of the water or right which was promised to pay through the performance of the obligation is considerably over the amount of the obligation and that the contract cannot be against public order and good morals unless the contract was concluded by taking advantage of the debtor's ability to lead and experience or imminent difficulties. The court below recognized that the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the building in the form of sale as a substitute payment for the debt amounting to 250,000 m2,000 m250,000 m30,0000 m2. The market price of the building in the present case is 6,70,000 m2. According to the records, even if the market price of the building in the present case exceeds the amount of the obligation, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as null and void due to the lack of pride in leading experience or imminent difficulties of the debtor.
Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)