[손해배상청구사건][고집1973민(2), 61]
In the sale of another person's right, the seller's damages
If a right belonging to another person is sold to the seller but it becomes impossible to acquire such right and transfer it to the purchaser, the seller has a duty to compensate for the loss equivalent to the market price of the object when it becomes impossible to transfer it to the purchaser.
Articles 570 and 571 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Korea
Chuncheon District Court (71 Gohap12) in the first instance trial
Supreme Court Decision 71Du12 Delivered on January 20, 1972
Of the parts against the defendant in the original judgment, the part ordering the plaintiff to pay in excess of 1,439,000 won per annum from February 23, 1971 to the full payment rate of 5 percent per annum shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim on that part shall be dismissed.
The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.
The total cost of a lawsuit shall be three minutes, and the remainder of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,871,50 won with 5% interest per annum from the day from the day after the notice is served to the day after the completion of the service.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
(Defendant Litigation Performers)
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
1. On June 17, 1965, the plaintiff was transferred to the non-party 1 on November 7, 1966 under the consent of the director of the Chuncheon Tax Office to the non-party 1 who purchased 64,760 won in annual installments from the head of the Chuncheon Tax Office, and purchased 64,760 won in annual installments. The plaintiff was transferred to the non-party 1 on June 7, 1966 under the consent of the director of the Chuncheon Tax Office to the non-party 1 on November 8, 1967. The non-party 1 sold the above dry field to the non-party 1 corporation on October 20, 1967, and the non-party 2 sold the above dry field to the non-party 1 corporation for which the registration of preservation was completed on October 31, 1967, and the defendant could not be recognized as having been transferred to the non-party 1 corporation for the above dry field and the non-party 2 corporation for which the plaintiff 1 had lost its ownership.
Therefore, the defendant sold the right to another person, but it is impossible for the plaintiff to acquire and transfer the right, so the sales contract for the above dry field between the plaintiff and the defendant is legally terminated at the time when the gushe was delivered to the defendant in this case in accordance with the plaintiff's assertion, and the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the market price of the above dry field at the time when the defendant was unable to acquire and transfer the ownership of the above dry field to the plaintiff pursuant to Articles 570 and 571 of the Civil Code. In this case, the time when the defendant acquired and transferred the ownership of the above dry field to the plaintiff in the exhibition lawsuit, the time when the plaintiff was unable to transfer the ownership of the above dry field to the plaintiff at the time of May 12, 1970. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff with the interest rate of 1,439,000 won (1,439,000 won x 00) and damages for delay from February 5, 197.
2. In addition to the damages of this case, the plaintiff raised 5,80 cryp 1,00 cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp c.
Therefore, when a seller acquires the ownership of a real estate belonging to another person and becomes unable to transfer it to the buyer, the scope of damages to be compensated for by the buyer as the content of the seller's warranty liability shall be the amount equivalent to the market price of the real estate. In the case where the buyer alters the purpose of use as farmland which is the subject matter of sale and constructed a building where mulberry trees were planted, the damages incurred due to the removal of the building is the same as the damages that the seller would incur from the removal of the building, because the seller knew or could have known such circumstances at the time of the sale and purchase of the above real estate, it appears in the general principle of compensation under the Civil Act to interpret that the warranty liability of the seller was the content of the above real estate when the seller knew or could have known such facts at the time of the sale and purchase of the real estate. Thus, even if it was based on the evidence of the seller's warranty liability that the seller knew or should not have known the sale of the above real estate to the non-party 1, the seller before or after the purchase and sale of the above real estate.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on damages caused by removal of the above mulberry trees and buildings is groundless without further need to determine.
If it is true whether the plaintiff's claim of principal lawsuit is legitimate within the scope of the above-mentioned grounds, and the remainder is justified, and the part against the defendant among the original judgment with different conclusions is erroneous, and the defendant's appeal against this part is reasonable, so the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed as stated in the Disposition 1, and the defendant's remaining appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 96, 95, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of the total costs of lawsuit after the first instance court and the appellate court.
Judges Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)