In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that, inasmuch as it is clear that there was a deceptive act by the defendant, such as the plaintiff's assertion at the time of conclusion of the contract, since it is obvious that there was a deceptive act by the defendant at the time of conclusion of the contract, as long as the purchaser knew that the subject matter of the transaction was owned by another person, the seller does not have a duty to notify the purchaser of the fact that the subject matter of the transaction was owned by another person, and even if the seller alleged that the subject matter of the transaction was owned by another person at the time of the contract, it cannot be deemed that the seller's act of the sale itself is unlawful, even if the buyer alleged that the subject matter of the transaction was owned by another person at the time of the purchase and sale contract, and even if the buyer acquired ownership of the subject matter and transferred it to the buyer at the time of the purchase and sale contract, according to the evidence stated by the court below, it can be recognized that the seller could have kept documents necessary for the transfer of ownership in the plaintiff's name until the date of payment of the remaining price.

However, Article 569 of the Civil Code provides that the sale and purchase of another person's right shall be effective to protect the trust interest of the bona fide buyer. Therefore, if the purchaser knew that the other person's goods were to be sold by deception and if there were circumstances where the purchaser did not purchase another person's goods, the purchaser may cancel his/her intention of purchase pursuant to Article 110 of the Civil Code. However, the court below found that the plaintiff, who was the buyer, could transfer his/her ownership to the plaintiff by the agreed date based on the stated evidence without examining whether the plaintiff would have purchased the goods if he/she had not obtained the defendant's deception. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff's deception was not legitimate due to insufficient deliberation or it erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Articles 110 and 569 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the judgment of the court below with merit is reversed.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating judges, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice)