beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal
A. In a case where, under a continuous contractual relationship, when the obligor fails to perform the obligation in accordance with the terms and conditions of the obligation, the obligee gives a peremptory notice to perform the obligation within a reasonable period and the obligee agrees to terminate the contract if the performance is not performed within the said period, the obligee may terminate the contract by continuously cancelling the contract upon meeting the requirements stipulated in the agreement.
On the other hand, since a continuous contract is based on the trust relationship between the parties. When one of the parties to the contract while the contract is in existence violates its contractual obligations and thus the trust relationship, which serves as the basis of the contract, is destroyed, making it impossible to expect the continuation of the contract, the contract can be immediately terminated and its validity may be terminated in the future.
Where one party included considerable expenses and number of persons for the performance of a contract during a continuous contract and it is anticipated that the transaction will continue for a relatively long period on the basis thereof, whether there is any significant reason for not expecting the existence of the contract should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the circumstance leading up to the conclusion of the contract; (b) the content of the continuous contract; (c) the degree of expenses and effort made by one party for the performance of the contract; (d) the degree of the performance of the contract; (e) the details and degree of the contractual breach; (e)
(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Da17826 Decided March 24, 1995; 2010Da48165 Decided October 14, 2010, etc.) B.
In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court: (a) on May 31, 2005, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”).