The legal nature of the contract for sale of movable property with the reservation of ownership and ownership of the property

In concluding a contract of sale and purchase of movable property, where the seller delivers the object to the buyer before the price is paid, but until the price is paid in full, the ownership of the object is reserved to the seller and the so-called special agreement for the reservation of ownership is made to the effect that ownership is transferred to the buyer at the time when the price is paid in full, the agreement between the parties to transfer the ownership of the object is a condition that the sale and purchase contract is concluded and the price is paid in full at the time when the object is delivered. Thus, even if the object is delivered to the buyer, barring any special circumstance, the seller may claim the ownership of the object reserved against the buyer and the third party until the price is paid in full, and the ownership of the object is transferred to the buyer

Articles 147(1), 188, and 568 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na22278 delivered on February 8, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In concluding a contract of sale and purchase of movable property, if the seller delivers the object to the buyer before the price is paid in full, but until the price is paid in full, the ownership of the object is reserved to the seller, and the so-called special agreement for the reservation of ownership that the ownership is transferred to the buyer at the time when the price is paid in full, the agreement between the parties to transfer the ownership of the object is a condition that the sale and purchase contract is concluded and the payment is made in full at the time when the object is delivered. Thus, even if the object is delivered to the buyer, barring any special circumstance, the seller may claim the ownership of the object reserved against the buyer as well as the third party until the price is paid in full, and the ownership of the object is transferred to the buyer without any separate declaration

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for argument.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant's bona fide acquisition of the machinery of this case was not actually delivered by the non-party 1 or the defendant and the non-party 2, and it was not delivered by the non-party 1 or the non-party 2 by the revised method of possession, and there is no evidence to find that the non-party 4, the representative director of the non-party 3, was delivered by the non-party 1 after the non-party 1's default, and continued to rent and use the machinery of this case from the above non-party 1, the non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party company's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)