A. The case holding that there is no violation of the principle of pleading by interpreting an unclear assertion as an exercise of the right to defense of apprehension

(b) Right of defenses against uneasiness in continuous trade relations;

(c) The case holding that the right of defense of uneasiness has been acknowledged on the ground that continuous contract processing transactions had not been paid for the period for which the due date has expired, and there was no means to guarantee payment of the prepaid contract costs after the due date has been settled;

A. The case holding that, although the plaintiff did not clearly assert that he exercised his right of defense of simultaneous performance or right of defense of unstable performance under Article 536 (2) of the Civil Code, the defendant did not deliver the provisional park group because he delayed the payment of the former contract processing expenses, and thus his refusal of delivery was not liable for damages due to the non-performance of obligation, the plaintiff's assertion that his refusal of delivery is not illegal as the exercise of his right of defense of simultaneous performance or right of defense of unstable performance, it can be interpreted that the plaintiff's refusal of delivery includes an assertion that his refusal of delivery is not illegal.

B. In a continuous transaction, in a case where the supplier agreed to receive the payment after settling the transaction price at a certain period after the supply of goods or services first and then settling the transaction price at a certain period, it shall be interpreted that the supplier may refuse the performance of its obligation for the next period after the due date, in light of Article 536(2) of the Civil Act and the principle of good faith in a case where the performance of the due date is considerably unstable, even though the other party’s obligation was not paid or settled after the due date was completed, but the other party’s obligation was not yet due, but the other party’s obligation was not yet due.

C. The case holding that it is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff acquired the right of defense of simultaneous performance, which can refuse to pay his own debt, until it is possible to secure a means to guarantee payment within the due date, in light of Article 536 (2) of the Civil Code and the principle of good faith, since the defendant had already completed the settlement of accounts, and there was no securities to pay for the pre-payment of the pre-payment period even for the pre-payment period of the pre-payment period of the pre-payment period of the pre-payment period of the pre-payment period of the pre-payment period of the pre-payment period of the pre-payment period of the pre-payment.

Article 536(2) of the Civil Act; Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 2 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 69Da2076 delivered on March 10, 1970 (Gong1989, 1398)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Haok, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Seosung, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 93Na419 delivered on September 23, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, although the plaintiff did not clearly assert that Article 536(2) of the Civil Act or that he had exercised the right of defense of simultaneous performance or right of defense of unstable performance, the plaintiff argued that his refusal of delivery was not liable for damages because he did not deliver the provisional park because he did not deliver the provisional park because he had delayed the payment of the previous voluntary performance expenses (No. 267-268 of the record). The plaintiff's assertion that his refusal of delivery was not illegal as an exercise of the right of defense of simultaneous performance or right of defense of unstable performance.

Therefore, there is no reason to appeal that the judgment below erred in violation of the principle of pleading.

2. In a continuous transaction, where a supplier agrees to be paid after a certain period of time after the goods or services were first supplied in advance, the supplier shall perform his/her obligation in advance, and where the settlement of accounts was completed and the other party’s obligation was not paid or settlement was completed, but the other party’s obligation was not yet due, but the other party’s obligation was not yet due, but where the other party’s obligation was remarkably unstable, in light of Article 536(2) of the Civil Act and the principle of good faith, the supplier may refuse the prior performance of his/her obligation for the following period until the due date of the first supply of the goods or services or until the other party’s failure to perform his/her obligation is resolved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 69Da2076, Mar. 10, 1970).

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, around November 190 between the plaintiff and the defendant who engages in the business of manufacturing, selling, exporting, and importing, etc. of textile products and the plaintiff engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, exporting, and importing, etc. of textile products, the plaintiff, within the payment period, dump processed raw materials for export supplied by the defendant and supplied them to the daily salt factory or wing factory designated by the defendant, and the defendant, within the payment period, concluded a contract to settle the cost of processing to pay the cost of processing to the plaintiff within 60 days from the end of each month after settling the cost of processing and supplying the cost of processing to the plaintiff at the end of the month, and continued to maintain transaction relations. The defendant first 3 and 4 months from the commencement of the transaction with the plaintiff, paid the cost of processing within 70 days after the settlement of accounts and 120 days after the date of delivery at the end of the 9th anniversary of the request of the plaintiff for delivery at the end of the same year, the plaintiff did not make payment within the same 19th month.

If the facts are as above, in the continuous business relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant had already completed the settlement of accounts and failed to pay the processing expenses on April 191, 191. Since the settlement of accounts had already been completed but no securities have been issued to pay the processing expenses for the above five months and six months which had not yet arrived at the maturity date, it is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff acquired the right of simultaneous performance defense ("right of defense against non-performance" in the lecture) to refuse the implementation of the processing supply of the original unit which has prior obligation to pay until it is possible to secure a means to guarantee payment within the maturity date in light of Article 536(2) of the Civil Act and the principle of good faith.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff failed to implement the above original supply after July 9, 1991, the delay of the performance is justified as it constitutes a legitimate act based on the above defense. Thus, the plaintiff shall not be liable for damages caused by delay of performance to the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below with the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right of defense of simultaneous performance.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)