beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On September 29, 2017, the fact that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land (Yansan-gun Co., Ltd., Busan-gun) from the Defendant for KRW 720 million and paid the down payment amount of KRW 70 million on the same day (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and thereafter, the fact that the Plaintiff was forfeited the down payment due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the remainder to the Defendant by March 30, 2018, which is the remainder payment date, does not conflict between the parties.
2. Determination:
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's invalidation is invalid as a trade share owned by another person is determined as to the plaintiff's assertion that the land in this case is owned by the defendant 3/5 and the non-party D 2/5. The plaintiff asserts that the sales contract in this case was made only between the defendant and the defendant without D's consent, and thus invalid.
B) However, the sales contract cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the seller sold another person’s real estate not owned by the seller (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da13207, Jul. 8, 197). In a case where the seller still belongs to another person, the seller shall acquire the ownership of the real estate and transfer it to the buyer. Accordingly, if the seller is unable to transfer it, the seller bears the duty to acquire the ownership of the real estate and transfer it to the buyer, and if it is impossible, only bears the warranty liability or default liability under Article 570 of the Civil Act according to the contract effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da49128, Dec. 8, 200). Examining the Plaintiff’s assertion in light of such legal principles, the sales contract of this case cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that D owns a part of the share of the land of this case as a third party.
Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion.
2) The plaintiff argues that the contract of this case is null and void because it is an impossible condition. The contract of this case is developed to a third party after the development of the land of this case.