The case where a decision was rejected on the defense of simultaneous performance

The case where a decision was rejected on the simultaneous performance defense.

Article 536 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 66Na205, 206 delivered on July 29, 196

Of the original judgment, the part against the Defendant is reversed;

The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's appeal is examined.

According to the legal brief dated March 11, 1966 as stated in the first instance court's nine pleadings, it is clear that the defendant, as to the plaintiff's claim for the housing name of this case, the defendant raised a defense against the plaintiff that the plaintiff could not perform his obligation until the plaintiff provided the defendant with the payment of 35,000 won for the house deposit and the beneficial expenses incurred for the house repair. However, the court below recognized the defendant as 41,030 won for the beneficial expenses. The defendant received 41,030 won from the plaintiff and received 41,030 won from the plaintiff, and the defendant received 41,030 won from the plaintiff and received 41,030 won for the above ground Yadong-gu and 35,000 won for the 35,000 square meters for the 1,000 square meters for the 35,000 won for the 35,000 won for the 1,000 won for the 35,000.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

Based on evidence, this building was built by the judgment of the court below on July 1964, with the Defendant's implied repair of the building which was collapsed due to a heavy storm, as the Defendant's exit at the Defendant's implied view. However, it did not reach the degree of difference in the identity of the building, and when the Defendant emergency repair of the building, the materials and the shortage of the materials were constructed using the labr and lab in used goods for the repair of the building. Furthermore, since the part of the building which was 1 Hobbbbb in this building was connected to the site owned by the non-party shipbuilding company, the part is just in the name of the removal, and as the repair cost of the building was 41,030 won in this case, the part is labed with the repair cost of the building, which was 41,030 won in this case, and as such, the court below did not admit the above repair cost as the repair cost with specific evidence attached to the above repair cost approval of the court below.

Accordingly, the part against the defendant among the original judgment is reversed in accordance with the judgment on the first ground for appeal, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman