beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that it was reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s entering into an apartment supply contract to which the instant apartment was supplied under the name of the Defendant, a grandchild, pursuant to the contract title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
The judgment below
In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
A. The right of defense of simultaneous performance, when both parties are related to the other party's obligation with a quid pro quo meaning, is recognized, and when one party requests performance of the other party's obligation without performing or providing performance, the other party can refuse performance of his obligation. Thus, the other party may be held liable for the other party's obligation on the ground that one party's obligation of counter-performance with simultaneous performance does not provide performance of the other party's obligation, or for the purpose of cancelling the contract, the other party shall be held liable for the other party's obligation on the ground that the other party has not provided performance of the other party's obligation, or
(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da46771 delivered on April 12, 2002, etc.). B.
The court below held that the defendant's obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase fund and acquisition tax, etc. for the apartment of this case against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the apartment of this case against the defendant has occurred in relation to the validity of the contract title trust agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the defendant has a relationship of simultaneous performance. In regard to the conjunctive claim, the apartment of this case from the plaintiff