[매매대금][공1996.5.15.(10),1387]
[1] The case affirming the judgment below holding that even if the sales contract did not state the price of land as usually, it constitutes a sale where quantity is designated
[2] The case holding that even if the actual area is less than that of the sale and purchase of land on the basis of the area entered in the public register and its difference is within the permissible error range under Article 48 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Records, the seller cannot defend for this reason
[3] Whether Article 45 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Intellectual Property Act limits the appraisal institution or method of surveying the land subject to civil disputes (negative)
[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that where the purchaser believed that a certain area exists and the seller explicitly or implicitly indicates that the area exists, and furthermore, the parties to the contract are identified as the most important factor among the various factors to determine the price and determine the price based on its objective values, the sale of the land is the sale of the designated quantity even if the price of the land is not stated in the sales contract
[2] The case affirming Article 48 (1) through (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Records (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14568 of Apr. 6, 1995), where the actual area of the land and the area in the public register are less than that of the land sale and the actual area of the land are less than that of the sale and purchase, the seller may not dispute the difference between the actual area of the land and the area in the public register within the scope of the permissible error, which is merely a provision to correct the error between the area before and after the partition in the division of the land, or a provision to permit the error in the area of the registration conversion
[3] The provisions of Article 45 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Intellectual Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14568 of Apr. 6, 1995) stipulate the method of a boundary restoration surveying conducted by the competent authority in the cadastral record, and it does not purport to limit the institution or the method of surveying to appraise the location and area of the land which is the object of civil disputes.
[1] Article 574 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 574 of the Civil Code, Article 48 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Records (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14568 of April 6, 1995) / [3] Article 45 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Records (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14568 of April 6, 1995)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da15433 delivered on April 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 1346) Supreme Court Decision 92Da56674 delivered on June 25, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2104)
Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant (Dongdong General Law Firm, Attorneys Song Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 94Na27788 delivered on September 21, 1995
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below did not have any mark indicating boundaries between the neighboring forest and its neighboring forest as at the time of entering into the sales contract for the forest of this case with 40,000 won for each of the following reasons. The non-party representing the defendant has offered approximately 500,000 won for each of the original forest of this case as at the time of entering into the sales contract for the forest of this case with 50,000 won. However, if the plaintiff confirmed the current status by entering the on-site answer and the public record, but he knew that the area is 605,00 won as at 60,000 won as at the time of entering into the sales contract, and it did not have any objective point of view that the sale price of the forest of this case is 240,000,000 won for each of the above parties, and it did not have any error in the law regarding the sale price of this case with an objective point of view that the size of the land of this case is 39,09,0,000 square meters.
Meanwhile, in this case, the area that the defendant reduced as a result of the real survey in this case includes the scope of allowable errors as stipulated in Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Records Act. According to Article 45 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the boundary restoration survey should be conducted by the same method as at the time of registration. Thus, in the survey appraisal, the land survey must be requested to a surveyor belonging to Yangyang-gun having jurisdiction over each forest of this case, and even though the court below did not make any judgment on the ground of the private surveyor's survey appraisal, it is like the theory that the court below did not make any judgment on this issue. However, as long as it is deemed that the land was sold by designating the quantity between the parties, the provision that correct errors between the area before and after the division or the area after the registration conversion, or the provision that permits errors in the area of the forestry register and the area of the area to be registered after the registration conversion, which is merely merely a provision that does not affect the boundary area or the area of the land in the public record, and the purport of the judgment below is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)