[가처분이의][공1999.10.15.(92),2088]
The legal nature of the contract for sale of movable property with the reservation of ownership and ownership of the property
In concluding a contract of sale of movable property, where the seller delivers the object to the buyer before the price is paid in full, but until the sale price is paid in full, the ownership of the object is reserved to the seller and the so-called special agreement for the reservation of ownership is made to the effect that the ownership is transferred to the buyer at the time when the purchase price is paid in full, the agreement between the parties to transfer the ownership of the object is a condition precedent that the sale contract is concluded and the price is paid in full at the time when the object is delivered. Thus, even if the object is delivered to the buyer, barring any special circumstance, the seller may claim the ownership of the reserved object against the buyer and the third party until the price is paid in full. This legal doctrine states that the sale contract which made a special agreement for the reservation of ownership is scheduled to sell the object to the buyer, and that the special agreement for the reservation of ownership is announced to the third party.
Articles 147(1), 188, and 568 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Non-party to the administrator of signalling ethyl Co., Ltd. (Attorney Gyeong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Tae Young Steel Co. Ltd.
Seoul High Court Decision 98Na52270 delivered on April 29, 1999
The appeal is dismissed. All costs of appeal are assessed against the respondent.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In concluding a contract of sale of movable property, where the seller delivers the object to the buyer before the price is paid in full, but until the sale price is paid in full, the ownership of the object is reserved to the seller and the so-called special agreement for the reservation of ownership is made with the purport that ownership is transferred to the buyer at the time when the sale price is paid in full, the agreement between the parties to transfer the ownership of the object is a condition to suspend all payment only at the time when the sale contract is concluded and the object is delivered. Thus, even if the object is delivered to the buyer, the seller may assert the ownership of the object reserved until the price is paid in full (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da14807 delivered on June 28, 1996), barring any special circumstance, until the buyer and the third party are paid in full (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da14807 delivered on June 28, 199). Such legal principle does not stipulate any special agreement for the reservation of ownership as to the object, and it does not contain any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the title of the third party.
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 on the bench.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)