Facts of recognition

The court's explanation on this part is citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the reasoning of the judgment

Since the owner of the mother land of this case is not a co-defendant A of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as the "A") but a network E or his heir, the registration of correction of this case and the registration of the plaintiff and the defendant's transfer of ownership based thereon are all null and void. Each of the acquisition by agreement on the land divided from the mother land of this case constitutes a contract under private law, and all of the acquisition by agreement on the land divided from the mother land of this case constitutes a sale of another person's right under Article 569 of the Civil Act.

However, as the separate judgment against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, the Defendant acquired ownership of 574m2 in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (hereinafter “instant land”) and transferred it to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom, as the seller’s warranty liability for nonperformance of performance due to the sale and purchase of another’s right, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 570 of the Civil Act.

If a part of a right which is the object of the sale and purchase of the scope of damages becomes impossible to transfer to the buyer by acquiring the right, the bona fide buyer may claim damages from the seller after asking the seller for the warranty liability. In this case, the amount of damages the seller is, in principle, equivalent to the market price of the right which becomes impossible to transfer to the buyer after acquiring a part of the right which is the object of the sale and purchase (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da37727, Jan. 19, 1993), and real property is purchased and transferred to the buyer.