[2] The case holding that even if a local government's land purchased from the local government was incorporated into a public vacant land and it was impossible for the purchaser to construct the land with intent, it does not constitute a change in circumstances that could cancel the sales contract, and it cannot be deemed that maintaining the sales

[2] The case holding that even if a local government's land purchased by it was incorporated into a public vacant land and it was impossible for a purchaser to construct a restaurant, etc. intended by him, it does not constitute a change of circumstances that could cancel a sales contract, and even if the purchaser was unable to achieve the intended subjective purchase purpose, it cannot be deemed that maintaining a sales contract as it is against the good faith principle.

The so-called contract rescission due to change in circumstances occurs due to a significant change in circumstances that could not have been predicted by the parties at the time of the formation of the contract, and the change in circumstances occurred due to reasons not attributable to the party who acquired the right of rescission. If the binding force as stipulated in the contract is acknowledged, it is recognized as an exception to the principle of contract observance in cases where the result is substantially contrary to the good faith principle. Here, the circumstance referred to in this context refers to an objective circumstance which serves as the basis of the contract, not to mean the subjective or personal circumstance of one party. In addition, even if a circumstance which is not the basis of contract formation changes later and causes damage due to a failure of one party to achieve the purpose of the contract intended at the time of the contract, barring any special

After finding the facts as indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff could rescind the instant sales contract on the ground of change of circumstances or good faith, on the ground that the Plaintiff could not be held liable to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the change of circumstances or the good faith principle is contrary to the good faith principle, to maintain the sales contract of the instant case on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the designation of a development-restricted zone for the instant land was considerably higher price than the objective market price at the time when it became possible for the Plaintiff to construct and develop the instant land; (b) the Defendant was designated as a public vacant land; and (c) the construction and development of the instant land became impossible; and (d) the expropriation of the instant land was made according to the development-restricted zone for public vacant land.

However, such judgment of the court below is not acceptable in light of the above legal principles.

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the sales contract of this case was conducted through the public sale procedure of the defendant for general purchasers. The conditions for public sale include the land in the development restriction zone, and the defendant is not responsible for administrative restrictions after the sale of the land of this case. The sales contract of this case only stipulates that the defendant is not responsible for all risks that occur after the delivery of the land of this case, and there is no evidence to deem that there was discussion as to the construction of the land of this case at the time.

Therefore, the issue of whether it is possible to construct the instant land is merely the subjective purpose of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant land, and it is difficult to view it as the basis for the establishment of the instant sales contract. Thus, even if construction of restaurants, etc. intended by the Plaintiff became impossible due to the incorporation of the instant land after the instant sales contract was incorporated into public vacant land, such change of circumstances cannot be deemed to constitute a change in circumstances that could cancel the instant sales contract, and even if such change in circumstances make it impossible for the Plaintiff to achieve the objective of subjective purchase intended by the Plaintiff and suffered losses, it cannot be deemed that maintaining the validity of the instant sales contract as it is, barring any special circumstances, to the contrary.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the above changed circumstance constitutes change of circumstances that created the right to cancel the contract, or that maintaining the validity of the sales contract of this case is contrary to the good faith principle and thus the right to cancel the contract of this case arises to the plaintiff. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the change of circumstances or the cancellation of the contract by the good faith principle

The ground of appeal by the defendant litigant pointing this out is with merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)