[채무부존재확인ㆍ소유권이전등기][미간행]
[1] The method of determining the parties to a contract where the actor has entered into the contract under another person's name
[2] In a case where a third party purchased a real estate through another party and in the name of the purchaser (=the third party)
[1] Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105 and 186 of the Civil Act
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da32120 decided Sep. 5, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1998) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da22089 decided Mar. 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 101) Supreme Court Decision 200Da3897 decided May 29, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1455), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44059 decided Dec. 12, 2003 (Gong204Sang, 125) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da909 decided Apr. 23, 193 (Gong1993Ha, 1524) / [196Da19679 decided Dec. 16, 197)
Plaintiff (Attorney Cho Man-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Eba Construction Co., Ltd. (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Gyeong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na6887, 2004Na68894 decided June 3, 2005
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In cases where an actor who enters into a contract performs a juristic act in another person’s name, as to whom the actor or the title holder is the party to the contract, the actor or the title holder shall be determined as the party to the contract in accordance with the consent, if the actor and the other party agree with each other. In cases where the intent of the other party does not coincide with each other, the other party shall be determined by whether to understand either the actor or the title holder as the party to the contract in accordance with the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature, content, purpose, and circumstances of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da22089, Mar. 13, 1998; 2003Da44059, Dec. 12, 2003). Meanwhile, if the purchaser agreed to purchase real estate through another person under the name of the other party, the trust relationship in the name of the purchaser is merely an internal relationship between them, and in principle, the other party should be externally a party to the contract.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and held that the defendant is a party to the sales contract of this case, and that the buyer of the sales contract of this case is a non-party 1 and non-party 2 is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as violation of precedents on the confirmation of parties to the contract, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
As above, as long as the judgment of the court below is justified, the determination on whether the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded, or whether the plaintiff is liable for compensatory damages due to the impossibility of the execution of the contract of this case against the defendant is nothing more than a family and additional judgment which presented the case where the defendant is deemed a party to the contract of this case. Thus, even if there were errors as alleged in the grounds of appeal, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)