(a) The validity of a sales contract for any property devolving upon an unregistered property;

(b) Fruits of creditors taking into account in determining the amount of damages or damages;

(a) Even if the property has not been sold, the sales contract between the parties to the contract that the seller acquires ownership and transfers it to the buyer shall be valid and shall not be null and void for the reasons above;

B. In determining the amount of damages or the amount of damages, considering the fault of the obligee, the obligee is required to take into account the existence of the cause for the liability or the occurrence of the damage. Therefore, the reason that the initial sale was made with respect to damages caused by nonperformance of the sales contract by the obligee’s request cannot be deemed to constitute a cause for offsetting negligence.

(a) Article 8 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 563 of the Civil Act, Article 396 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na21 delivered on February 13, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the real estate of this case (as of June 5, 194, the real estate of this case (as of June 5, 194, the address omitted) was used as the site for the business of the company's industrial site by taking over the real estate of this case (as of June 5, 194, the non-party 1 was sold to the non-party 1 with 57,128 shares belonging to the above company of this case as of January 31, 1959, and the non-party 2 again recognized that the defendant sold the real estate of this case to the plaintiff again to the non-party 2, and the non-party 2 was purchased from the country of this case by recognizing that the real estate of this case was purchased from the country of this case. Further, even if the real estate of this case was not sold to the buyer of this case, it cannot be viewed that the sale contract of this case is invalid between the parties to this case's real estate of this case.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

In conclusion, the court below rejected the defendant's argument of comparative negligence unfairly.

However, considering the creditor's negligence in determining liability for damages or amount of compensation, it is necessary for the creditor to take into account the existence of the cause for liability or the part in the occurrence of damages. Thus, the same cause as the theory of lawsuit cannot be deemed to constitute a cause for offsetting the damages, and other materials supporting the plaintiff's participation in the cause for liability for damages of this case and in the occurrence of damages cannot be recorded. Thus, even though the court below's reasoning that the claim for offsetting the damages in accordance with the agreement under a sales contract is inappropriate, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it cannot be accepted.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The argument that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the amount of damages in the contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is clearly stated in the record that the defendant did not claim up to the original judgment, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal, and thus,

4. On the fourth ground for appeal:

According to relevant evidence, the plaintiff purchased 40,000 won per price of the site of this case which was computed by the country for unavoidable reasons such as the time of original adjudication, and as such, the court below's recognition and decision that the above amount is the amount of damages to be borne by the defendant pursuant to the contents of the contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is acceptable. The evidence No. 20 No. 1 (No. 7-1, No. 7-1, No. 20 of the land of this case) appears to have been made for the convenience of registration after the plaintiff purchased again from the country, and there is no circumstance that the plaintiff would have been able to preserve the original purchaser's right if only 192,00 won was paid after the purchase from the country. Thus, the court below's decision cannot be accepted as it did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations like the theory of lawsuit.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)