Where a third party's right has been traded but it has become impossible to perform, the scope of damages to be received by the purchaser

When a person who has purchased or sold another person's rights has become unable to transfer his/her rights, the seller is obligated to compensate the bona fide buyer for the same economic benefits as the contract has been fully performed according to the market price at the time of impossibility.

Article 393(2) of the Civil Act, Article 569 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 66Na45 delivered on October 27, 1966

We reverse the original judgment.

the case is remanded to the Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

According to the statement of the first instance court on March 16, 1966, "the plaintiff did not peruse the land cadastre of this case, and the defendant died 10 years prior to the death of the deceased non-party who is the owner of this case, and since the defendant's additional person belonging to this case purchased the land from the defendant because he purchased it at the time of survival, the defendant sold it to the plaintiff, so it is obvious that the defendant would seek compensation for damages due to the defendant's original impossibility of performing obligations." The plaintiff's statement of this case was known that the land was owned by a third party at the time of the sale of this case. Thus, it is obvious that the plaintiff's above statement of this case was not entitled to claim compensation for damages pursuant to the proviso of Article 570 of the Civil Act, and it is not clear that the plaintiff did not know that it was owned by a third party, not at the time of sale of this case, at the time of the purchase of this case, at the time of this case, the plaintiff's purchase of real estate under the name of the defendant and the title of this third party.

The judgment on the second ground for appeal

In the event that a right which has been the object of sale belongs to another person and the buyer is unable to acquire such right and transfer it to the buyer, the buyer who did not know that the right which has been the object of sale belongs to the seller does not belong to the seller is reasonable to compensate the seller for the same economic benefit as the contract has been completely performed, which includes not only the loss suffered by the buyer but also the loss of objection that could have been incurred.

Therefore, Supreme Court Decision 1961No. 385 Decided April 21, 1960, which is contrary to this opinion, changed the opinion of the principal cost indicated in the case. The amount of damages in the above case shall be determined on the basis of the market price at the time when it becomes impossible to acquire and transfer the right which became the object of sale and purchase in principle, like the time when the compensation for damages was finalized due to nonperformance of obligation. In this case, the seller claims compensatory damages on the premise that it is clear that the plaintiff has no intention to perform the contract, and thus, the buyer is unable to acquire and transfer the ownership of the land at the time of the cancellation of the contract. Therefore, if the contract is terminated, the buyer is entitled to the right to benefit until the cancellation of the contract, and barring any special circumstances, the amount of damages that the buyer is entitled to receive shall be determined on the basis of the market price at the time of the cancellation of the contract, and the situation such as economic market price at the time of the cancellation of the contract shall not be calculated on the premise that the parties have predictability or predictability.

As above, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope and timing of calculating the seller's damages, and thus, the grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, we reverse the original judgment on the grounds stated above, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong (Presiding Judge) Na-dong and Kimchi-bak and Ma-dong Ma-dong Ma-man Man-man Man-man Man-man