[손해배상(기)][공1995.12.1.(1005),3772]
In case where the price of an object is changed after the obligation to transfer ownership becomes impossible, whether the amount of damage is special damage.
Where a debtor's obligation to register the transfer of ownership of a real estate becomes impossible, in principle, the amount of compensation for damage shall be based on the market price of the object at the time of impossibility of performance, and even if the market price of the object was at a later rate, damages arising therefrom are due to special circumstances, and thus, the debtor may claim compensation for damages based on the due price only where he/she knew or could have known such special
Article 393 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee
Attorney Kim Yong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 94Na41647 delivered on April 21, 1995
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records, the court below is just in holding that the defendant transferred the land of this case to the non-party government of the non-party government and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 16, 198, and thus, the defendant's obligation to transfer ownership to the plaintiff of this case for repurchase based on the judgment on the land of this case was impossible. The judgment below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending legal principles
2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
Where a debtor's obligation to register the transfer of ownership of real estate becomes impossible, in principle, the amount of compensation for damage shall be based on the market price of the object at the time of impossibility of performance, and even if the market price of the object was lower thereafter, the damage incurred therefrom is due to special circumstances, and thus, the debtor may claim compensation for damage based on the due price only where he/she knew or could have known such special circumstances at the time of impossibility of performance (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da20163, May 27, 1993).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant according to the market price at the time of failure to perform the duty to transfer ownership of the land in this case after the defendant's obligation to transfer ownership of the land in this case was impossible. However, the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to conclude that the defendant knew or could have known such special circumstances. In light of relevant evidence and records and the legal principles as seen above, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss
3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)