The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal on the dismissed appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on July 1, 1982, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that on August 9, 1982, the above sales contract was lawfully cancelled due to the plaintiff's default, that the plaintiff purchased the above real estate from the defendant for KRW 61,00,000,000, and paid KRW 64,90,000 on August 15, 198 of the same year the remainder of the contract deposit per day, and received documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership of the above real estate from the defendant in return for payment of KRW 54,90,000 on August 15 of the same year. The above sales contract was lawfully rescinded by the plaintiff's delivery of the complaint of this case due to the defendant's default, and that the plaintiff knew of the above purchase contract amount of KRW 69,00,000,000 for the above real estate to the non-party 1, and thus, it could not be recognized that the plaintiff was liable to pay the above damages to the above non-party 1.

However, the time to judge whether the obligor knew or could have known of the special circumstances stipulated in Article 393(2) of the Civil Act, as at the time of original adjudication, should be determined not by the contract at the time of execution but by the time during which the obligation is due, as at the time of original adjudication, as at the time of original adjudication, and according to the evidence No. 7 (written confirmation) that the Defendant recognized the establishment of the case, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff, which was prior to the due date of the obligation ( August 15, 1982), had sold the purchased real estate to Nonparty 1, 1982, which was prior to the due date of the obligation. Therefore, it is evident that the Defendant already known that the Defendant had known that there was a special circumstance that caused the damage that the Plaintiff suffered due to the resale contract prior

The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim for damages on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to damages due to special circumstances, and the appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages on the ground that the plaintiff paid 3,200,000 won to the non-party 1 as the consideration for repair expenses, etc. invested in the above building to the non-party 1, on the premise that the contract for the sale of this case is effective. (1) The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages on the ground that the court below was just in light of the records, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence as to the theory of lawsuit and there was no violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff, which sought payment of 6,00,000 won and damages for delay, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining appeals by the plaintiff are without merit, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal 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 Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)