(b) the burden of proof for reasons attributable to the impossibility of performance.

In this case where it is proved that the defendant's original decision was liable for damages to the defendant, and there is no proof that the failure of the plaintiff's original decision was caused by the defendant's cause attributable to the defendant, the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for damages caused by the defendant's impossibility of performance. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff cannot claim damages in accordance with Article 570 of the Civil Act since the plaintiff was aware that the land in this case was not owned by the defendant at the time of the sale contract of the land in this case. However, according to Article 570 of the same Act, when the buyer purchased and sold another person's right, if the buyer knew that the right which was the object of the sale was not belonging to the seller at the time of the contract, the buyer (the original judgment is deemed to be the buyer's clerical error) can cancel the contract, and the buyer cannot claim damages from the seller. However, even in this case, the buyer can claim damages due to the cause attributable to the seller, and thus, the defendant'

However, as determined by the court below, since the plaintiff knew that the ownership of the land of this case does not belong to the defendant at the time of the sales contract of this case, the plaintiff cannot claim damages against the defendant on the ground of the non-performance under the proviso of Article 570 of the Civil Code. However, only if the non-performance of this case was caused by the defendant's fault, the plaintiff can claim damages against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff can't prove that the non-performance of this case is caused by the defendant's fault, and it cannot be presumed that the non-performance of this case is caused by the defendant's fault. Thus, the court below's burden of proof is determined that the defendant has the burden of proof, and unless there is no proof on this point, the presumption that the non-performance of this case was caused by the defendant's fault should be presumed to be caused by the defendant's fault, and further, the court below's judgment on this ground is reversed from this point. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho