In the sales contract for the land of this house to be the object of sale, the obligation to be borne by the seller where the seller acquires the ownership by exercising the right of sale.

The main purpose of the sales contract for the land of this housing is to have the buyer acquire the ownership of the housing site based on the right of sale. Thus, the seller of the right of sale is obligated to have the buyer acquire the ownership of the housing site based on the right of sale. In this case, if the buyer permits the change of the ownership of the buyer in the name of the buyer in the name of the buyer, thereby attaining the purpose of the sales contract, the seller is obligated to fulfill his/her obligation if the buyer implements the procedure for change of the name of the buyer in the name of the buyer. Furthermore, the buyer is not obligated to complete the registration of ownership transfer after acquiring the ownership of the land of this housing based on the right of sale. However, if the buyer acquires the ownership of the land of this housing by exercising the right of sale between the buyer and the buyer without changing the name of the buyer, there is no way to achieve the purpose of sale except for the method of transferring the ownership of the land of this housing to the buyer in the future.

Article 568 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Attorney Kim Shin-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 94Na1333 delivered on July 19, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's transfer registration of ownership on the land of this case as the Corporation was created in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, which caused damage to neighboring residents due to environmental pollution, and the non-party Ulsan-gun will create a large-scale housing site as a relocation measure project for residents, so that the residents can transfer the ownership only once. The defendant who was residing in the same area was designated as the purchaser of the land of this case within the first housing site development project from the non-party Ulsan-gun around early 1987 as the purchaser of the land of this case within the first housing site development project. On March 20, 1990, the plaintiff's sale contract of this case was concluded between the non-party Ulsan-gun and the sale price of this case was 3,350,720 won for the land of this case or the plaintiff's transfer registration of ownership was completed on July 8, 198 after the completion of the housing site development project, and the plaintiff's right to purchase the land of this case can not be recognized otherwise by the plaintiff's right to purchase of this case.

However, it is clear that the main purpose of a sales contract for the purchase and sale of this house is to enable the purchaser to acquire the ownership of the housing site for relocation based on the purchase and sale right. Thus, the seller of the above purchase and sale right is obligated to allow the purchaser to acquire the ownership of the housing site for relocation based on the purchase right. In this case, if the purchaser can achieve the purpose of the sales contract by permitting the change of the ownership of the purchaser in the name of the purchaser, the seller will fulfill his obligations if he implements the procedure for change of ownership in the name of the purchaser. Furthermore, the buyer has no obligation to complete the registration of ownership transfer (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu802, Mar. 24, 1987). However, if the seller has acquired the ownership of the housing site by exercising the ownership of the housing site for relocation based on the purchase right, the buyer has no obligation to complete the registration of ownership transfer, apart from the method of sale and sale by the purchaser (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da19296, Feb. 29, 1962).

Therefore, even if the plaintiff purchased only the right to purchase the land of this case from the defendant, the defendant is obligated to complete the registration of ownership transfer for the land of this case as long as he acquired the ownership of this case by exercising the right to purchase the land of this case, and the decision of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's claim is erroneous in the misapprehension of the sales contract, which covers the right to purchase the land of this case as the object of sale, and the conclusion of the appeal is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)