The right of defense of simultaneous performance held by the other party cannot be seen as extinguished solely on the fact that one of the parties to a bilateral contract provided the reality one time first, and that the other party omitted the other party into the recipient body, but the provision of the performance has not been continued.

The right of defense of simultaneous performance held by the other party cannot be seen as extinguished solely on the fact that one of the parties to a bilateral contract provided the reality one time first, and that the other party omitted the other party into the recipient body, but the provision of the performance has not been continued.

Article 536 of the Civil Act, Article 460 of the Civil Act

66Da1174 delivered on September 20, 1966

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 68Do8220, 11044 decided October 22, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter simply referred to as the Plaintiff);

Even if one of the parties to a bilateral contract provides the reality one time first, and the other party puts the other party into the place of receiving the bilateral contract, the right to defense of simultaneous performance held by the other party cannot be deemed extinguished solely on the fact that there was a performance offer in the past (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da1174 delivered on Sep. 20, 196). It is justifiable to view that the performance of the plaintiff's obligation is not deemed to have been achieved, solely on the fact that there was a real provision of December 28, 1965, which is the remaining payment date, 1965, which is the remaining payment date, which is pointed out in the final appeal by the original court, as the time of performance of the plaintiff's obligation is not deemed to have been performed, and that the second remaining payment date is the time of the repayment deposit of the second remaining payment date. The appeal

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

(1) No. 1 (Contract) No. 1 pointing out the argument in the final appeal cannot be deemed as a penalty agreement for breach of contract as stated in Paragraph 6 (compensation for a double the down payment upon cancellation or objection by the seller); and

(2) The court below's rejection of the non-party 1's testimony is legitimate and the payment of the principal and interest of the secured debt and the auction expenses that the non-party 1 acquired is the plaintiff's natural obligation of acceptance of performance

(c) The testimony of the witness of the theory and the evidence Nos. 23-1, 5, 24-1, and 2 of the evidence No. 24 are the purport of the court below's rejection of the testimony of the non-party 1, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in rejecting the non-party 1's testimony.

(d) the preceding paragraph is the same as a measure to reject Nonparty 1’s testimony; and

(v) The court below's decision was justifiable that the deposit already made in repayment returned to the effect that the deposit has no effect, such as the failure to deposit it from the beginning, and there is no reason to discuss an appeal that points out the original judgment on the premise of the opposing opinion;

(6) The court below is justified in finding the fact that the deposit 200,000 won of Nonparty 2 was offset against the delinquent rent and extinguished in full view of the evidence based on the original judgment and the purport of the oral argument; and

(7) The judgment of the court below on the cancellation of the provisional attachment of a novel claim is not only the facts duly confirmed by the court below pursuant to the evidence No. 11-1, 2, and 3 of No. 11, but also the grounds for appeal disputing the facts duly confirmed by the court below from the opposite position.

The judgment on the third ground for appeal as above;

In light of the facts established before and after the judgment of the court below, it cannot be recognized that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 conspiredd to commit an illegal act, and the court below's decision to the effect that there is no evidence to support the fact that there was no obstruction to the plaintiff's exercise of claim against the defendant 1 by negligence of the said defendants, is just, and it cannot be said that there was an incomplete hearing or a violation of the rules of evidence

Therefore, the appeal is without merit.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon