[2] In a case where the general extinctive prescription is completed even if the exclusion period under Article 582 of the Civil Code does not run, whether the buyer’s right based on the warranty liability is extinguished (affirmative)

[3] The case rejecting a buyer's claim against the seller for damages equivalent to the cost of waste disposal buried underground in the subject matter of sale on the ground that the buyer's claim for damages against the buyer's warranty against defects has already expired

[2] Even in a case where the exclusion period under Article 582 of the Civil Act does not run due to the purchaser's knowledge of the defect in the subject matter of the family, the right of the buyer's warranty under the Civil Act shall be deemed extinguished by the prescription in the event the general extinctive prescription expires

[3] The case rejecting a buyer's claim for damages equivalent to the cost of waste disposal buried underground in the subject matter of sale on the ground that the buyer's claim for damages based on the warranty against defects has already expired

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in relation to Gap evidence 1 through 10, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 11 through 8, Gap evidence 12-1 through 4, Gap evidence 13-1 through 5, Gap evidence 14-1, 2, Gap evidence 15 through 18, Gap evidence 19-1, Eul evidence 19-2, new interest houses and images of this court (hereinafter referred to as "new interest houses"), the fact-finding results of the fact-finding on the North Korean branch office of the Korea Land Corporation in Daegu, and there is no counter-proof.

A. On August 4, 1988, the Defendants sold each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case") to the Plaintiff, a construction company, and thereafter completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 16, 1998. On September 10, 1998, the Plaintiff sold each land of this case to the Non-Party Korea Land Corporation, and accordingly completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 2 of the same year. The Korea Land Corporation entered into a contract to sell each land of this case to Non-Party Park Jong-ju on March 6, 2002, but changed the name of the purchaser into a new house to build a apartment on each land of this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 22 of the same year.

B. On December 12, 2002, when construction of an apartment building was being conducted on each land of this case for the initial purpose of purchase, new interesting housing was found to have been illegally buried in a large quantity of building structures, such as waste concrete mixtures, waste soils, waste synthetic resin with a large volume of 400 cubic meters in 3,150 cubic meters and waste concretes, 7,700 cubic meters in volume, waste soils, waste synthetic resin with a large volume of 400 cubic meters, and industrial wastes (hereinafter “the waste of this case”) on each land of this case. On the 16th of the same month, the Korea Land Corporation requested the seller to remove the waste of this case on the 10th of the same month, and the Korea Land Corporation confirmed the above site and notified the seller of this to the Plaintiff on the 20th of the same month, and the Plaintiff did not have any responsibility to verify the status of the land of this case and request the Plaintiff to jointly dispose of the land of this case.

C. In the event that the delay in the disposal of the instant wastes is likely to cause a trouble in the timing of occupancy due to the delay in the apartment construction of the New Housing for the New Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Waste for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Waste for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction of the Housing for the Construction.

D. On May 29, 2003, the Korea Land Corporation paid the instant waste disposal costs to a new interest house, as seen above, filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the said KRW 296,854,630, which was paid to the new interest house with the Daegu District Court Decision 2003Kahap7689, and was awarded a favorable judgment on February 10, 2004, which was rendered on February 10, 2004. When the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time, it received KRW 344,107,380, including the Plaintiff’s above KRW 296,854,630, and damages for delay.

E. Meanwhile, around June 10, 2003, when the Plaintiff received a request from the Korea Land Corporation to bear the cost of the instant waste disposal, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of his intent to compensate for the amount to be borne by the Plaintiff. On the 19th of the same month, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants seeking the payment of the amount equivalent to the cost of the instant waste disposal.

F. From around 1978, the instant waste is presumed to have been buried in the non-party central textile industry corporation, which had owned the 376-1 m201 m201 m201 m203 m2507 m2507 m2, Daegu Northern-dong, Daegu-dong, Busan-dong, from among each of the instant land from around 1978, and had been presumed to have been in default. The Defendants and the Plaintiff, the buyer of the instant sales contract, did not know that the instant waste was buried in each of the instant land under each of the instant land at the time of the instant sales contract.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not know the fact that the instant wastes were buried in the underground of each of the instant land and caused damages to the Korea Land Corporation as a result of purchasing each of the instant land from the Defendants, thereby compensating the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the cost of the instant waste disposal. As such, the Defendants jointly and severally liable for nonperformance or sale, and are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the claim amount that the Plaintiff paid to

B. The defendants' assertion

(1) In relation to the Plaintiff’s assertion of liability for nonperformance, the Defendants had no intention or negligence to assume liability for nonperformance under the instant sales contract, as well as the Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from the said liability for nonperformance has already expired by prescription. In relation to the Plaintiff’s claim for liability for defect liability, part of the instant land becomes extinct due to the transfer of ownership due to auction, thereby making it impossible to perform the liability for defect liability any longer, and on the other hand, the claim for damages arising from the said liability for defect liability

3. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of default liability

On the other hand, the plaintiff's right to claim damages due to the plaintiff's non-performance of obligation under the contract of this case against the defendants was already established on or around August 4, 1988, and the extinctive prescription has run from that time. It is clear in the record that the plaintiff notified the defendants to pay the amount equivalent to the cost of disposal of the waste of this case, and filed the lawsuit of this case around June 2003 after the expiration of 10 years from that time. Thus, the plaintiff's right to claim damages has already expired prior to the above peremptory notice and the lawsuit of this case. Therefore, the defendants' above assertion has merit.

B. Determination of the warranty against defects

(1) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim

In light of all the circumstances, as acknowledged in the above facts, including the contents of the instant wastes buried under each of the instant lands and the amount of reclamation, expenses required for their disposal, and the motive for the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the instant lands and the developments leading to the construction of apartment houses on the ground, etc., the act of reclaiming the instant wastes under each of the instant lands, which are the object of the instant sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, constitutes a case where the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not have any quality or condition as expected to be equipped with the subject matter in the sale, and the Plaintiff did not know of the above defect in the sale, and even if it was difficult to easily understand it, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant lands from the Defendants and sold them to the Korea Land Corporation, but sold them to the Korea Land Corporation, and thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the amount of the instant waste disposal cost, which the Plaintiff paid to the Korea Land Corporation, as the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the defect in each of the instant lands, barring any special circumstances.

(2) Judgment on the defendants' assertion

(A) As to the assertion that the warranty against defects has been severed due to auction

The Defendants asserted to the effect that, among each of the instant lands, the Defendants owned a central textile industry corporation with the land of 376-1 2013 m2 and 7507 m252-2 m2, which was originally owned by the central textile industry corporation. As the commercial bank of the non-party corporation acquired it by auction on March 22, 1984, the liability for warranty against the commercial bank of the central textile industry corporation under Article 580(2) of the Civil Act was cut off, and the Defendants who acquired the ownership of each of the above lands thereafter do not bear the liability for warranty against each of the above lands.

However, the purport of Article 580 (2) of the Civil Act, which provides that the provisions concerning warranty liability shall not apply to this auction, is that the successful bidder who acquired an object through an auction for the purpose of giving certainty to the result of the auction can not be held liable for warranty against the owner of the object of auction on the ground of the defect in the object of auction itself, and it does not purport that the successful bidder cannot be held liable for warranty against the seller who transferred the ownership due to the sale in general, not the auction thereafter, and that the successful bidder cannot be held liable for warranty against the seller who transferred the ownership due to the sale in general.

(B) As to the assertion that the extinctive prescription has expired

The Defendants also asserted to the effect that even if the limitation period under Article 582 of the Civil Act has not expired because the Plaintiff, the buyer, was unaware of the defect of each land of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages became extinct due to extinctive prescription since August 4, 1988, when 10 years have elapsed since the statute of limitations for the claim for damages due to general default liability, since the Defendants sold each land of this case to the Plaintiff.

As to the period of exercise of the right based on the warranty liability, Article 582 of the Civil Act provides that the buyer shall exercise his/her right within six months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the defect in the object. In the application of the above provision, unless considering the general period of extinctive prescription, the above exclusion period may not run permanently unless the buyer knows the defect in the object, and as a result, the seller may be placed in an unstable position at any time even after the expiration of the general period of extinctive prescription.

However, the legislative purport of Article 582 of the Civil Act, which requires the buyer to exercise his/her right within a short-term exclusion period exceeding the general extinctive prescription period, is to prevent the buyer from infringing the stability of the transaction by leaving the legal relationship related to the above defect neglected in an indefinite state as soon as possible in the general transactional relationship. Thus, it is merely the fact that the buyer does not know of the defect in the object (in particular, even if there is any hidden defect not knowing the defect in the seller's object), deeming that the buyer cannot escape from the danger to enforce the warranty liability even at any time beyond the general extinctive prescription period is unreasonable in light of the legislative purport of the above provision, which provides for a special limitation period in order to promptly determine legal relations as to the warranty liability, and the warranty liability is based on the non-performance liability, and thus, it cannot be seen that the buyer's right to the warranty liability becomes extinct immediately after the lapse of the prescription period under the Commercial Act (Article 28 of the Civil Act).

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages based on the Plaintiff’s warranty against the Defendants had already occurred on or around August 4, 1988 when the sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and the extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages based on the general liability for nonperformance has run. However, it is evident in the record that the Plaintiff notified the Defendants to pay the amount equivalent to the disposal costs of the instant wastes, as damages based on the warranty liability, around June 2003 after the ten-year period of the extinctive prescription of the said liability for nonperformance, and filed the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages has already expired prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion has merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the claims of this case against the Defendants are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Judges Lee Jin (Presiding Judge)