The case holding that a person who is obligated to perform the duty in the continuous contractual relationship can exercise the right of defense of simultaneous performance.

In the following month after the plaintiff processed the original unit supplied by the defendant and supplied and supplied it to the defendant, and maintained the continuous transactional relationship with the defendant, if the defendant did not pay the above processing costs, and the defendant did not pay the above processing costs to the defendant, and if the defendant expressed his intention to refuse the above processing costs, then the defendant would be engaged in the original processing in another part unless the above processing costs are immediately supplied to the defendant, and if the defendant clearly expressed his intention to refuse the payment of the above processing costs, the plaintiff would be placed at an unstable position that would not receive the subsequent processing costs even if the processing costs are supplied to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff acquired the right of defense of simultaneous performance under the good faith principle of the continuous transaction relationship with which the plaintiff can deliver the above original unit by paying the processing costs to the defendant.

Article 536(2) of the Civil Act

Rule of Genderity

Cho Yong-man

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 11,672,30 won and the above amount of 8,285,282 won from January 1, 1991; 3,387,048 won from February 1, 1991 to April 8 of the same year; and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,672,30 won with 6% per annum from January 1, 1991 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The plaintiff is a person who engages in the processing, chroding, etc. of a fiber fiber with the trade name of optical fiber, and the defendant is a person who engages in the production of an Acryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle cryle, etc., around March 1988.

Therefore, the defendant supplied 1,583 Kacwon, which was produced by the defendant for the above 1-year processing of the above 1-year processing plant, to the plaintiff for the above 2-month processing, but the plaintiff did not deliver the above 1-year processing unit to the defendant by January 10, 1991, and the defendant did not deliver the above 1-year processing unit to the above non-party company, thereby causing damages equivalent to 8,548,200 won, which are the above 1-year processing unit value. Thus, the plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant for damages caused by delay of the above 9-year processing plant, on the premise that the above 1-year processing unit's delivery was not carried out by the above 1-year processing unit's 2-month processing unit's 9-month processing unit's 9-month processing unit's 1-month processing unit's 9-month processing unit's 1-month processing unit's 2-month processing unit's 1-2's warranty.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above fee of 11,672,30 won and the above amount of 8,285,282 won for the fee of processing for November of the above amount, from January 1, 1991, the day following the date following the agreed payment period, and 3,387,048 won for the fee of processing for December from February 1, 1991 to April 8, 1991, the day following the date following the agreed payment period, and from April 1, 1991 to April 1, 1991, the amount of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 25% per annum under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed for the payment of litigation expenses, and as to the provisional execution, Article 89 and the proviso to Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied.

Judges Senior Superintendent (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung