Where a foundation has obtained permission from the main office to dispose of the substitute property as an additional owner in selling its basic property, whether the cancellation of the agreement becomes impossible to implement the above basic property sales contract after concluding a sales contract for the substitute property.

In a case where a foundation has concluded a sales contract for real estate of basic property and obtained a permit from the competent authority to dispose of the real estate owned by the non-party as a substitute property, and subsequently purchased the real estate owned by the non-party as a substitute property, and thus failed to fulfill the additional clauses for the permission to dispose of the basic property by cancelling the sales contract, the above sales contract for basic property cannot be effective, and thus, the obligation of the foundation foundation becomes impossible to perform its obligations.

Article 546 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 Incorporated Foundation and one other

Seoul Civil History District Court (70A3052)

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each person.

The plaintiff shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 4,802,00 won with an annual interest of 5% from September 27, 1967 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit were assessed against the Defendants and the declaration of provisional execution.

The defendants shall revoke each part of the original judgment against the defendants.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances is revoked. (1) The part that dismissed the plaintiff's claim under the following (2) of the original judgment shall be revoked. (2) The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from September 27, 1967 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants in both the first and second instances, and the declaration of provisional execution is based only on the above (2).

1. The real estate stated in the separate list No. 1 (hereinafter the above real estate) was owned by the defendant 1 and the defendant 2. The plaintiff purchased the above real estate from the defendant 2 on June 7, 1967 as 180,000 won and paid 80,000 won to the defendant 2 for the following reasons: The defendant 2 had no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the above real estate was purchased on August 6, 1967 and the defendant 2's disposal of the above real estate under the separate list No. 1 and the defendant 2's disposal of the above real estate; the defendant 1 and the defendant 6's disposal of the above real estate were contrary to the above 9's disposal agreement; the defendant 1 and the defendant 2's disposal of the above real estate as 9's disposal of the above real estate, and the defendant 2's disposal of the above real estate was contrary to the above 9's disposal order No. 1 and the defendant 2's disposal of the above real estate.

Therefore, on September 16, 1967, the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant foundation was approved by the competent authority to dispose of the real estate in this case. The sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant foundation was made between the defendant foundation and the non-party 2, and could be fully performed. However, as seen above, due to the mistake that the defendant 2, the representative director of the defendant foundation, as the representative director of the defendant foundation, failed to comply with the request of the non-party 2 to cancel the sales contract, the competent authority's non-party 2's transfer of ownership to substitute real estate in the name of the defendant foundation, and thus, the competent authority's permission to dispose of the real estate in this case was not effective. As such, the above sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant foundation, which was impossible to perform because it became impossible to fulfill its obligations due to the lack of the competent authority's permission to dispose of the real estate in this case's disposal of the real estate. This would be equivalent to the amount of the plaintiff's joint and several liability to compensate the plaintiff's real estate for damages.

2. The defendants asserted that even if the plaintiff is liable for the failure to fulfill the above suspension condition against the defendant foundation and the defendant 2, the plaintiff was negligent in purchasing the real estate in this case's purchase of the real estate, despite the plaintiff's knowledge that it is the basic property of the defendant foundation, and that the basic property of the foundation is not possible to take effect without obtaining the disposal permission from the competent authority, the plaintiff was also responsible for the plaintiff's purchase of the real estate without obtaining the disposal permission from the competent authority. (B) In addition, the disposal permission of the competent authority was a condition to suspend the transfer of ownership before the defendant foundation first, and the purchase of the property substituted by the defendant foundation was made objectively low price, and there was an error in this regard against the seller's non-party 2, and since the defendant foundation paid the down payment to the non-party 2, it was merely the fact that the sales contract with the defendant foundation was cancelled at any time by returning only the amount of the down payment to the non-party 2, and it did not take account of the safety liability of the plaintiff.

However, according to the above evidence No. 2 and No. 4-6 and No. 4-2 and No. 9-4 (excluding each interrogation protocol, each of the above trusted part) without dispute over the establishment of the above, it can be recognized that the plaintiff purchased the real estate from the defendant foundation, which was the basic property of the defendant foundation, and that the basic property of the foundation foundation is the basic property of the defendant foundation only when the competent authority grants permission for disposal of the real estate, and the disposition becomes effective only when the basic property of the foundation foundation is obtained from the defendant foundation. However, as recognized above, the permission of the competent authority for disposal of the real estate at the time of the above sales contract was agreed to assume the responsibility of the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff believed that the defendant was to obtain permission from the competent authority, concluded a sales contract, and there was no evidence to deem that there was any error by the defendants that the plaintiff believed it as such, and there was no such reason as the defendant's (Ga). Thus, the plaintiff did not admit any defense as to the above facts.

3. Furthermore, barring any special circumstance, the amount of damages that the plaintiff suffered as a result of the non-performance of the above suspension condition that the plaintiff would not take effect due to the non-performance of the above suspension condition shall be the amount calculated by deducting the purchase price of KRW 1,50,00 which the plaintiff would have to pay to the defendant foundation from the market price of the real estate in the case of the defendant foundation for which the non-performance of the condition of suspension of disposal permission was confirmed in this case and the non-party 2 decided to cancel the sale contract on September 17, 1967). The price of the real estate in this case around September 19, 1967, which was the time of non-party 4's appraisal of the court below, can be recognized as the fact that the non-party 5's appraisal result against the above recognition was believed to be difficult, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the contents of the above appraisal were contrary to the market price of the non-party 4's appraisal request.

Therefore, it is clear that the amount of damages that the Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 1,455,90.

4. Accordingly, the defendants are liable to pay damages for delay in civil affairs at the rate of 5% per annum from September 27, 1967 to the full payment, since the plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay after the plaintiff was not obligated to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit shall be limited to the scope of the performance of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and shall be dismissed without any justifiable reason. Accordingly, the judgment below is just in its conclusion, and since the defendants' appeal and incidental appeal are all without any grounds, they shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and with respect to the burden of litigation costs, they shall be applied Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act to each disposition.

[Attachment List]

Judges Park Jong-dong (Presiding Judge)