[소유권이전등기청구사건][고집1977민(2),370]
Specific degree of the purchase price in a sales contract
In a sales contract, even if the specific contents of the purchase price are not necessarily determined and conclusive, it is not possible to determine the purchase price solely on the basis of the three standards for determining the price agreed upon between the parties, and the content of the agreement is determined by the compromise agreement between the parties later. However, inasmuch as the agreement between the parties is not reached, the agreement cannot be deemed to have been concluded in a valid sales contract unless it is agreed upon by the compromise agreement between the parties.
Article 563 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellee] 4292Guho819 delivered on July 7, 1960 (Supreme Court Decision 598 and 5999 delivered on July 7, 196, Article 390(6) of the Civil Act, Article 563(4) of the Civil Act, and Article 566 of the Civil Act)
Neglected Department Corporation
Lotl Ling Ling Lings Co.
Yeongdeungpo Branch Court of Seoul District Court of the first instance (75Gahap648)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The defendant shall receive 383,235,00 won from the plaintiff and, at the same time, shall take procedures for the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate recorded in the attached list on November 22, 1974 and shall issue an order to the plaintiff.
The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
According to Gap evidence No. 2 (the same as Eul evidence No. 1), which has no dispute in the formation of the agreement, the plaintiff and the defendant (the former trade name before the modification is the Korea Undeveloped beverage Co., Ltd.) enter into a sales contract with the defendant on Nov. 22, 1974 between the plaintiff and the defendant (the latter real estate in this case). The purchase price shall be determined by mutual agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, but the price shall be determined by mutual agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, but the standard for the agreed price shall be determined by taking into account the total amount of the acquisition price of the company of the Korea Appraisal Co., Ltd. (the defendant) at the current market price, and the agreed date shall be until Jan. 22, 1975.
Therefore, in light of the above standards for determining the price of the three categories of real estate in this case, the fair price of the real estate in this case is KRW 383,235,00, and therefore, between the plaintiff and the defendant, the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be deemed to have been concluded with the above amount on November 22, 1974. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff has the obligation to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the same transaction of the real estate in this case at the same time as the plaintiff received the above money from the plaintiff and to deliver the same real estate.
However, according to the appraisal result of the above 3 market price determination of the above real estate, the appraisal value of the Korea Appraisal Board as of November 22, 1974 can be recognized as the causes of 389,369,060, and there is no reflective evidence No. 2-1 (site investigation report) which can be recognized as true by the testimony of the non-party 2-2 (factory and electrical facilities, boiler facilities, market price) and the above 4-mentioned testimony of the court below as to non-party 1-5 (the above 6-mentioned appraisal result of non-party 1-6 appraisal method of non-party 4) and the above 6-mentioned appraisal method of non-party 1-6 (the above 6-mentioned appraisal method of non-party 1-6 appraisal method of non-party 1-6 appraisal method, and the above 3-mentioned appraisal method of non-party 1-6 witness's appraisal method as of December 12, 1974).
In addition, considering the above evidence No. 2 and the facts recognized as mentioned above, the contents of the agreement on the purchase price specified in the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant as of November 22, 1974 do not promptly determine the purchase price in the above 3rd price determination standard, but the purchase price shall be determined by the agreement between the parties later. However, in the agreement between the parties, it is merely the purport of considering the above 3rd share in the agreement, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the agreement was not reached between the parties. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the above contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was established as a valid sales contract since the agreement on the most important price is not reached among the contents of the sales contract.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case under the premise that the above contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on November 22, 1974 was effective in 383,235,000 won out of the purchase price of this case's real estate, and there is no reason to further determine it. Thus, the court below's judgment with this conclusion is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who lost the plaintiff.
Judges Park Woo-ho (Presiding Judge)