In case where an obligor pays for foreign currency claims which are monetary claims designated in a foreign currency by converting them into Korean currency, the standard time for conversion (=performance period)

The due date for the claim against which brokerage remuneration is prohibited shall not arrive after the date of issuance of the credit, but shall arrive at the date of notification of import permission of the government (the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy) prior to that date.

Article 378 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1293, 1294 Decided November 26, 1968

Songcheon Industrial Co., Ltd. (Attorney Seocheon-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Nmentor Muchi Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Oi-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na1335 delivered on July 13, 1973

(1) Of the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant, the part ordering the Plaintiff to pay 26,712,000 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from December 2, 1965 to the reaching of full payment is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(2) The defendant's remaining appeals and the plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

(3) The costs of the appeal against the defendant are assessed against the defendant, and the costs of the appeal against the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) First of all, we examine the Defendant’s Lee Jong-dae, and the grounds of appeal No. 1 of the same kind.

In addition, the theory does not appear to be to criticize the judgment of the court below by citing evidence preparation and fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the court below as a fact-finding court, and there is no other error of law such as misunderstanding of reasoning or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

In addition, Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act does not include claims that are prohibited from the issuance, modification, repayment, or extinguishment of the claims, and Article 23 of the same Act does not include claims that are subject to the issuance, modification, repayment, or extinguishment thereof under Article 33 of the same Act, and Article 23 of the same Act does not deny the validity of the contract under the private law. Therefore, the judgment below is just and the judgment below to the same purport is justified, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, such as the theory of lawsuit,

This paper is groundless.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that the plaintiff had permission to import the goods equivalent to US dollars 3,180,000, and the defendant's claim for the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the case had already been completed on March 25, 1970, and the five-year commercial prescription period had already been completed on March 25, 1970, and the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the case was within 18,00 US dollars after February 13, 1965, which was the date of the issuance of the letter of credit for the introduction of the goods equivalent to US$ 3,180,00,000. The plaintiff's claim for the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the case to the defendant was within 197,0,0,0,0,000.1.

(2) The grounds of appeal on the Han Uniforms of Korea are examined as follows. (3) The grounds of appeal on the Han Uniforms of Korea are examined as follows.

(2) Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1 in the Yellow River.

If there is no special agreement between the parties that the debtor agreed to pay the amount in foreign currency, the debtor is sufficient to pay the amount in Korean currency at the exchange rate of the due date (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da1293, 1294, Nov. 26, 1968). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below ordered the payment of the amount in this case at the time of the issuance of the letter of credit, and it is clear that the payment of the amount in this case should be made in Korean currency converted into 280,100,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00).

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4 are also examined.

In order to ensure the reasonable settlement, i.e., the case’s reasonable resolution, fair and prompt resolution, the right of explanation is deemed to be the authority granted to the court in order to complete the pleading and the examination of evidence, such as clarifying the purport of the party’s pleading when it is unclear, demanding proof, etc. However, even in each case as pointed out in the debate, it does not appear that the court below should exercise the right of explanation even in each case, and therefore, there is no error of incomplete deliberation in the court below’s failure to exercise the right of explanation in each case of the debate.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

Since a partial claim does not take effect as to the remaining claim, in the case of a partial claim made by an obligee, and in the case of a remaining claim, only when the remaining claim was made, the interruption of prescription takes effect as to the remaining claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 67Da529, May 23, 1967; 69Da597, Apr. 14, 1970), the judgment of the court below in the same purport is just, and the argument cannot be accepted because it does not appear to be based on its independent opinion.

(Supplementary ground of appeal by Kimchig is that the appellate brief was submitted after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief, and thus it is not determined)

(3) Accordingly, among the part of the judgment below against the defendant's failure, the part of the order ordering the plaintiff to pay an amount of 26,712,000 won and an annual interest rate of 6% from December 2, 1965 to the full payment. The defendant's remaining appeal by the defendant and the plaintiff's appeal are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. The costs of appeal against the part against the defendant are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)