[손해배상][공1982.4.1.(677),300]
In the case of resale of purchased real estate without registration of transfer, whether the sale of another person's right has been made (affirmative)
The case where the defendant resells the real estate purchased to the plaintiff without registering the transfer thereof is the sale of another person's right. The plaintiff knew that the plaintiff did not belong to the defendant if he concluded a sales contract with the knowledge of the fact that the plaintiff sold the real estate to the plaintiff.
Article 569 of the Civil Act, Article 570 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 72Da982 delivered on November 28, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 79Da564 delivered on June 26, 1979
Attorney Kim Jong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Attorney Park Yong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1715 delivered on February 12, 1981
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the records, the court below's decision that recognized the fact that the land purchased from the non-party's pride (the original court's judgment that the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's disease's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party.
However, according to the records, the first instance court and the second instance court's witness distribution, which introduced the main contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, shall give testimony to the effect that the plaintiff, while entering into the main contract with the defendant, he received the transfer of the sales contract entered into with the defendant to the defendant, and that the plaintiff shall pay both the intermediate payment and the balance to the defendant directly to the non-party, and the plaintiff shall consider the main contract (Evidence A A) between the plaintiff and the defendant, with the proviso that "the plaintiff shall take over the pre-sale contract and the pre-sale payment shall take charge of the pre-sale contract at the same time, and the pre-sale payment shall take charge of the pre-sale contract." Thus, barring any special circumstance, it may be proved that the plaintiff knew that the plaintiff was not belonging to the defendant at the time of entering into the main contract with the defendant. Thus, the judgment of the court below is in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is therefore justified.
Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent
Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)