손해배상(기)
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In the case of real estate sale, if the seller has already sold the object to another person and completed the registration of ownership transfer to a third person notwithstanding the duty of the seller to sell it to the third person, it is reasonable to deem that the seller is in an impossible condition unless there are special circumstances to the contrary;
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da1416, Mar. 22, 1983). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts. A.
On March 3, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract by setting the sales price of KRW 790,00,000, and the down payment of KRW 40,000 on the date of the contract as KRW 40,000,000 with respect to the newly constructed commercial buildings on land (hereinafter “instant building”) with the Defendant and Pyeongtaek-si C (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant store”) and agreed to determine the down payment of KRW 40,00,000 on April 30, 2016, and the remainder shall be paid at the time of completion inspection and at the time of transfer registration of ownership, the Plaintiff agreed to mutually negotiate on the basis of April 30, 2016.
B. On June 23, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that “the instant store shall be sold up to July 24, 2016, and if the store is not sold, the contract shall be terminated.” (c) On August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “The Plaintiff shall reimburse the amount of the down payment in accordance with Article 4 of the instant sales contract, given that the seizure of the land was not rescinded until August 3, 2016.”
On the other hand, on June 22, 2017, the instant store had completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of I.
3. According to these facts, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership of the instant store around July 24, 2016. The Defendant’s foregoing is the same in the instant case.