[손해배상(기)][공1991.6.1,(897),1346]
The meaning of "the sale and purchase designated by quantity" under Article 574 of the Civil Code and the sale and purchase of land shall not be deemed to be the sale and purchase designated by quantity.
The term “sale to which quantity has been designated” as stipulated in Article 574 of the Civil Act refers to the case where the parties set the price based on the volume at the time when a specific object, which is the object of the sale, has a certain quantity, has been set in order for the parties to hold a certain quantity. Thus, in the sale and purchase of land, even if an object is specified in accordance with the number of pages on the registry, the designated division by the parties was assessed as a whole even if it was not only a single standard but also a measure to determine the price of the land between the parties, it cannot be said that it was a sale to have been
Article 574 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)
Hongcheon District Court Decision 200Na1488 decided May 20
Lee Jae-su et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 90Na20758 delivered on October 30, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The term “sale and purchase of goods designated by the parties” stipulated in Article 574 of the Civil Act refers to the case where the parties set the price based on the volume at the proposal that the specific goods, which are the object of the sale, have a certain quantity. Thus, even if the sale and purchase of land is specified in accordance with the ordinary number on the registry, if it is deemed that there was a means for the parties to specify the land and determine its price since the sale and purchase of the land was merely a single standard, it cannot be said that it was a sale and purchase designated by the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu7266, May 8, 1990; 7Da811, Jul. 26, 197). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the sale and purchase of the building and its site, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the sale and purchase of the land from the Defendant and its site, and there was no error in the subsequent determination by the court below.
In addition, as long as the contents of the instant sales contract are as above, there is no room to apply Article 572 of the Civil Act, which provides for the seller's warranty liability, to the case where a part of the right which was the object of the sale belongs to another person, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any error of incomplete deliberation or omission of
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)