Methods of compensation for non-performance of obligation in international trade transactions

Even if the amount to be paid in the international trade contract was expressed in US dollars, there is no legal principle that damages due to nonperformance of the contract shall be paid in US dollars unless there is any other declaration of intention.

Article 390 of the Civil Act, Article 394 of the Civil Act

On March 22, 1962, Supreme Court Decision 4294Da1421 Decided March 22, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 7102Da 7102, Supreme Court Decision 10DoDoDoDoDo254, Decision 763 (18) 573 of the Civil Act)

(Omission of Name) Copia;

Defendant corporation

Seoul Civil History District Court (79 Gohap2033)

1. The plaintiff's appeal as to the main claim is dismissed.

2. The part concerning the conjunctive claim (the main text No. 2 and (3)) in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

(1) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 24,250,000 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from July 9, 1979 to the full payment day.

(2) The plaintiff's remaining conjunctive claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of appeal, five minutes of the costs of appeal in the first instance are assessed against the defendant, the remainder is assessed against the plaintiff, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

4. From among the winning parts of the above plaintiff, the part without a declaration of provisional execution in the first instance can be provisionally executed.

As the plaintiff's primary claim, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50,000 US dollars and 6% interest per annum from December 1, 1978 to the date of full payment.

If the defendant is unable to pay the above amount in the U.S. dollars, he will pay the amount converted into Korean currency according to the customer trading ratio of Korea Exchange Bank's notice of payment date.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant, the declaration of provisional execution, and the defendant, as the preliminary claim, shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 29,145,000 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from December 1, 1978 to the full payment day.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The plaintiff shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50,000 US dollars and 6% interest per annum from December 1, 1978 to the date of full payment.

If the defendant is unable to pay the above money in the U.S. dollars, he shall pay the money converted into Korean currency according to the foreign customer sale rate notified by the Korea Exchange Bank on the date of payment.

The court costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,95,000 won with the amount calculated by the rate of 6 percent per annum from December 1, 1978 to May 22, 1979, and the amount calculated by the rate of 6 percent per annum from December 1, 1978 to 24,150,000 won.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution, and the defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. The occurrence of liability for damages;

In relation to this, the reason why a party member should be decided is that the last 4th eth eth eth eth eth eth math eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

2. Scope of damages.

Furthermore, as to the scope and amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for damages and losses due to the special circumstances that the Defendant knew or could have known of the damages arising from the nonperformance of its obligation. In full view of the contents of Gap evidence No. 11 (specialized), Gap evidence No. 13, 14 (each sales contract), Gap evidence No. 15 (Purchase Contract), and Gap evidence No. 16 (credit), the Plaintiff did not perform the remaining goods by the due date for each of the above parties' testimony and arguments, and the Plaintiff did not perform the above remaining goods by the due date for each of the parties' arguments. The Plaintiff did not purchase the above goods from the non-party No. 2 corporation 100,000,000, 22,000, 100, and 1580, 197, 300,000, 30,000, 30,000, 30,000, 197, 197, 3,00.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the above evidence Nos. 11 and 12 (specialized) as well as the testimony of Non-Party 1 by the above witness of the court below, the defendant knew that the plaintiff is a clothing manufacturing company, and the price of the 1978 to 1979 from the beginning of the first half of the year 1979, the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the 1978 to the first half of the 1979 was about 58 cents, and that the defendant himself argued that the expenses incurred in the production of 1th of the 1th of the 1990s after the 190s are 58 cents. Thus, if the defendant did not deliver the above agreed goods, it seems that the plaintiff knew or could have known

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the amount equivalent to 50,000 US dollars (20% x 250,000) equivalent to 50,000 US dollars (20% x 250,000) that is calculated by offsetting the profits of 38% per annum, which the plaintiff is exempted from the obligation to pay due to the defendant's default, due to the plaintiff's default on his obligation.

3. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the damage caused by the defendant's failure to execute the contract of this case is caused by international trade, and the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is agreed to pay in US dollars. The plaintiff's main claim for US dollars payment is groundless, since the plaintiff's failure to perform the contract was made with the non-party company in reality with approval of US US 50,000, and the defendant should compensate for the above damage. However, even if the contract of international trade was denominated in US US, unless otherwise stipulated, the plaintiff's main claim for the plaintiff's failure to perform the contract is groundless.

Furthermore, if the above main claim is not executed on the premise that the above main claim is reasonable, there is no need to examine the main claim.

4. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

The plaintiff is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 50,00 U.S. dollars 50,000,000 won in Korean won converted from 582 U.S. dollars 582 U.S. dollars 90,000 won per month at the time of the closing of argument in this case. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 50,000 U.S. dollars 50,000 won in Korean won converted from the non-performance of this case. However, when converting the above amount into Korean won, it is reasonable to pay the plaintiff the above amount based on the exchange rate as of July 8, 1979 that the plaintiff acquired the right to claim damages equivalent to the above amount by actually paying the above amount to the plaintiff. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties that the foreign exchange rate of the foreign exchange bank 485 won per month on the above date was 485 won in Korea, so the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount to the plaintiff from the above rate 24,250,0,000 won.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed, and the conjunctive claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff's primary claim is justified and the judgment dismissing the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed. Therefore, in relation to the above conjunctive claim, the judgment of the original court differs from the opinion of party members, and the judgment of the original court is modified within the scope of the judgment, and the burden of the costs of the lawsuit is modified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96, Article 89, and Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Park Jong-dong (Presiding Judge)