[손해배상][집26(2)민,213;공1978.9.15.(592) 10979]
The term "compensation for defective down payment" means whether the phrase "defect" includes even in the case of impossibility of performance.
"Compensation for defective down payment" means that the contract refers to the time when a partial defect is found in the contract clause, or is ambiguous to include the whole defect, namely, the agreement on the amount of damages for the city where performance is impossible, and the intent of the agreement is clearly clarified, it cannot be said that the agreement is a special agreement on the estimate of damages including the impossibility of performance.
Articles 390 and 398 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 66Da2618 Decided May 18, 1967
Plaintiff
Defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 77Na1937 delivered on March 17, 1978
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.
With respect to the third point:
According to the court below's decision, the plaintiff's 60 square meters prior to July 12, 1925 (p. 42.9 square meters prior to the date of land substitution) was entered into a sale contract with 1,218,00 won for purchase, 90,000 won for which the down payment was made, and 1,128,000 won for the remainder payment as of August 12 of the same year, and the fact that the transfer registration of the plaintiff's name was made for the same person is under dispute between the parties, i.e., the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party's claim against the non-party 2, 1975, i., the non-party 1,28,000 won for the above 1,00 won for the above 30-year land for which the non-party 2, 1976, and the defendant is presumed to have lost ownership for the above 1,500-year land for which the above contract was made.
However, in cases where the right which was the object of the sale belongs to another person and the seller is unable to acquire such right and transfer it to the seller, it is reasonable for the seller to compensate for the same economic benefits as the contract was completely performed, and the amount of damages must be determined on the basis of the market price at the time when the right which was the object of the sale becomes impossible to be acquired and transferred in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da2618 delivered on May 18, 1967). In light of the records, the purport of the plaintiff's claim is that it is obvious that the plaintiff's registration of the name of the plaintiff against the plaintiff was cancelled in the lawsuit for cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership of the land which was raised by the clan, and it is not clear that the plaintiff's obligation of transfer registration between the defendant and the defendant pursuant to the sale contract belongs to the purport of "the compensation amount equivalent to the market price at the time it was impossible to perform," and it is not clear that it is the contract deposit or the contract deposit should be determined on the basis of the overall purport of the purport of the above.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court which is the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)