Compensation for double sale is recognized even if purchase land is not specific;

In the absence of special circumstances, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for compensatory damages due to nonperformance of the above duty to transfer ownership, unless there are special circumstances so long as the Defendant already sold and disposed of the land in another place, even though it is impossible for the Defendant to specify the land that was purchased from the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer again after re-division of another land, etc.

Article 390 of the Civil Act

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and four others, Attorneys Kim Tae-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na2650 delivered on June 25, 1976

The part against the plaintiff's claim for damages in the original judgment shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All remaining appeals except the above part of the plaintiff and the defendants' appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against this part are assessed against the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ appeal.

The judgment on the ground of appeal on the part against the plaintiff's claim for ownership transfer registration;

In the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff was the land purchased from the deceased non-party 1 who was the deceased non-party 1 of the defendant's predecessor's deceased, and each land for which the plaintiff sought the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer is newly developed due to the combination, division, etc. of different lands as stated in its holding, so there is no error of law in the course and contents of the evidence preparation and fact-finding, even if the plaintiff cannot be determined as the land purchased from the above deceased non-party 1 before the combination of lots of land, and the records cannot be viewed as the land purchased from the above deceased non-party 1 before the combination of lots of land. The evidence pointing out the theory is insufficient to deem that the plaintiff was the land first purchased, and the judgment on this part of the original judgment is just, not for the purport of rejecting the evidence, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of selective claim as

Judgment on the grounds of appeal as to the part of the claim for damages

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, among the land of approximately 1,60,00,000,000,000,0000,000 if the plaintiff purchased and owned the land of this case, which was alleged to have been purchased by Japan during the Japanese colonial period, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for compensation for the transfer of the land of this case from September 5, 1946 to about 80,000,000, which was purchased and owned by Japan by Japan. Among the land of "Yju farm", the plaintiff paid the purchase price of approximately 63,47,00,000, which was paid in full, before December 12, 1961, and the remaining 16,741, which was submitted by the deceased non-party 1 to the plaintiff as soon as possible, for the remaining 16,741, the real estate stated in the second list of judgment demanding compensation for transfer with the sale shares, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's claim for compensation for transfer.

However, in light of the records, the plaintiff's above part of the claim for damages was confirmed that the plaintiff paid a price of about 80,000 square meters among the land of the camping farm purchased from the deceased non-party 1, and the 63,447 square meters among the land is obligated to obtain the registration of ownership transfer and to execute the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff as well as the remaining 16,741 square meters. However, since it was impossible for the plaintiff to sell the remaining land other than the land listed in the attached Table 1 (3,122 square meters) in the decision that the plaintiff seeks to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer, the plaintiff's claim for compensation for damages due to non-performance of obligation is confirmed that the above 16,741 square meters is the registration fee for transfer in the future of the plaintiff, and the land other than the land listed in the attached Table 1 (3,122 square meters) cannot be sold to the plaintiff and the above land cannot be transferred to the defendants due to non-performance of obligation to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the court below should have judged the plaintiff's claim for damages after the year of the deliberation on whether it is possible to transfer the ownership, and the court below rejected the part of the claim for damages due to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations or the legal principles of compensatory damages due to non-performance of obligation, which affected the judgment. Therefore, the part against the plaintiff's claim for damages among the original judgment should not be reversed, on the ground that the plaintiff's appeal on this part is justified.

The judgment on the first ground of appeal by the defendant's attorney;

In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the land listed in the annexed Table 1 (10) (11) of the annexed Table 1 of the judgment of the court below among the land purchased by the plaintiff from the deceased non-party 1 on September 5, 1946 and the land listed in the annexed Table 2 (10) of the annexed Table 1 of the judgment of the court below shall be any of the land purchased by the plaintiff, but there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence or the incomplete deliberation as the plaintiff attacked in the land purchased by the plaintiff, and if each land of this case is returned to the defendants by the implementation of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects, the restriction on the good faith in possession of farmland under the Farmland Reform Act shall not be imposed on the original judgment. Therefore, there is no error of law

The judgment on the second ground for appeal;

In the case of farmland transactions before the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, even in the case of the registration after the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, it is unnecessary to prove the approval of the purchase and sale of farmland (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da1300, Sep. 26, 1972; Supreme Court Decision 67Da77, Mar. 21, 1967). Accordingly, the court below's decision is just in holding that in the case of the purchase and sale of farmland as of September 5, 1946, prior to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, it is unnecessary to prove the approval of the purchase and sale of farmland, and there is no reason for debate on the premise of the theory that the Farmland Reform Act shall apply to the registration of the transfer of this case's land, and in the original judgment, there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Farmland Reform Act as

Determination on the third ground for appeal:

While the Plaintiff purchased farmland on September 5, 1946, which was at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Act, but had not gone through the ownership transfer registration, the Plaintiff purchased farmland from the Government as a non-self-owned farmland under the Farmland Reform Act, and the Plaintiff lost its ownership due to the Plaintiff’s failure to transfer registration until December 31, 1965 pursuant to Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act, and the ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform is reverted to the Defendants. The Plaintiff’s ownership can not be returned to the Defendants. (A separate issue is that there is a claim for the registration of transfer as the buyer’s right to claim). The original judgment, which points out in the debate, did not state to the purport of the above, did not contain any error of law in the light of the reasons as alleged in the Plaintiff’s assertion, and it cannot be said that the acquisition of real right due to legal action at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Act has been justified and has not been effective until the lapse of 10 years prior to the enforcement of the above Act.

The judgment on the fourth ground for appeal

As long as the above deceased non-party 1, the inheritee of the Defendants, had already provided all the documents required for the registration of ownership transfer of the land in this case to the Plaintiff, the performance of his obligations against the Plaintiff is terminated. As such, the Defendants, the inheritor, have no obligation to implement the procedure to transfer ownership of the land in this case to the Plaintiff, and as long as the registration procedure has not yet been implemented, the Defendants were not extinguished with the Defendants’ obligation to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer, and the defense has not been dismissed on the ground that there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the theory.

The judgment on the fifth ground for appeal

However, as seen earlier, the court below's decision was just and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the admission of evidence or the testimony of the non-party 2 in the original judgment as to the land stated in the attached Table 2 (10) at the time of original adjudication, which was already sold by the above deceased non-party 1, the inheritee of the Defendants to the Plaintiff on September 5, 194, based on the evidence adopted by the court below as to the land stated in the attached Table 2 at the time of original adjudication, and the Defendants sold it to the Plaintiff without fulfilling their obligation of registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff on October 26, 1974, and determined to the effect that the Defendants' obligation of registration of ownership transfer was impossible to perform the obligation of the defendants on October 26, 1974 at the market price of this case as of October 26, 1974.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff's claim for damages shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court Act. Since the remaining part of the plaintiff's appeal and the appeal by the defendants are without merit, each part of the appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal against this part shall be assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice) Kim Young-young's interest in