[1] In a case where the seller’s duty to deliver the subject matter of sale is impossible because the subject matter of sale is destroyed by fire, whether the buyer can exercise the seller’s right to claim the fire insurance money to be paid by the seller due to a fire accident, and the fire mutual aid money

[2] Where the subject matter of sale is destroyed by fire and thus the seller receives fire insurance money and fire mutual aid money, whether the buyer can exercise the right to claim the whole amount of the fire insurance money and fire mutual aid money (affirmative in principle), and whether the scope is limited within the limit of the amount equivalent to the purchase price paid or agreed to be paid by the buyer at the time of nonperformance of the duty

[1] If the seller’s duty to deliver the subject matter of sale was impossible because the subject matter of sale was destroyed by fire, the buyer, who is the obligee, can exercise the right to claim the subject matter against the fire insurance money and the fire mutual aid money that the seller would receive due to a fire accident.

[2] Non-life insurance is for the purpose of compensating the insured’s property damage caused by an insured event (Article 665 of the Commercial Act), unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the amount of damages to be compensated by the insurer shall be calculated based on the value at the time and place of the damage (Article 676(1) of the Commercial Act), and this is also the same in the case of non-life deduction. As such, insofar as the subject matter of sale is recognized as the seller’s right to claim the buyer’s claim for fire insurance and fire mutual aid money, barring any special circumstance, the buyer may exercise the right to claim the whole amount of fire insurance and fire mutual aid money paid for the subject matter, and the scope is limited within the limit of the amount equivalent to the purchase price paid or agreed to

[1] Article 390 of the Civil Act, Articles 664 and 683 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 390 of the Civil Act, Articles 664, 665, 676(1), and 683 of the Commercial Act

Rosung Green Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Noh Jeong-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Law Firm Han-LLC, Attorneys present-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na34544 decided December 27, 2012

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in holding that the contract of this case, which the plaintiff purchased from the defendant on August 27, 2008, from the non-affiliated farmers in the boundary area on behalf of the government and the defendant decided to take over 1,400 won per 1 km of freezing 3,091,331km in each warehouse, constitutes a limited kind of goods transaction, and thus, the contract of this case constitutes the so-called limited kind of goods transaction, which occurred in the so-called "roman" freezing-si, Gyeonggi-do, "roman" freezing-si, Seoul, and thus, the defendant's duty to deliver the land of this case to the defendant on behalf of the defendant, was impossible to carry out all of the purchase price for the land of this case, and ② the plaintiff paid all of the purchase price for the land of this case to the defendant, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by the defendant, there is no violation of logical and empirical rules or any violation of law of free evaluation of evidence.

B. If the seller’s obligation to deliver the subject matter of sale, which is the obligor, was destroyed by fire, became impossible, the buyer, who is the obligee, may exercise the seller’s right to claim the fire insurance money and the mutual aid money that the seller would receive due to the fire accident.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's duty to deliver the land of this case was impossible due to the fire of this case, and the defendant received the fire mutual aid money for the land of this case due to the fire of this case, which is the same cause, the plaintiff can exercise the right to claim the plaintiff. The judgment of the court below is just in light of the above legal principles, and it cannot be viewed as different solely on the ground that the land of this case, which is the government gold-free goods, was subscribed to the "agricultural Fire Mutual Aid". Thus, contrary to the defendant's allegation in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err in the misapprehension

C. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, around April 21, 2009, the plaintiff prepared a letter of undertaking stating "after receiving fire compensation, all rights and obligations shall be extinguished with respect to the sale of government gold-free land," and delivered it to the defendant, and the court below did not make an explicit decision as to the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff renounced the right to claim the land of this case. However, all circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, especially the circumstances, which can be known by the non-party of the plaintiff's employee, already paid to the defendant the purchase price for the land of this case at the time of the preparation of the above letter of undertaking, and as the object of the sales contract of this case, the freezing 120,63.4 km which was destroyed by the fire of this case, was the object of the contract of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was not a representative director of this case's right to claim the land of this case and the remaining part of the defendant's right to claim for the land of this case can not be accepted.

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The purpose of a non-life insurance policy is to compensate the insured’s property damage arising from an insured event (Article 665 of the Commercial Act), and unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the amount of damage to be compensated by the insurer is calculated on the basis of the value at the time and place of the loss (Article 676(1) of the Commercial Act), and the same applies to the case of a loss deduction. As such, insofar as the subject matter of a sale is recognized as the seller’s right to claim the buyer’s claim for the fire insurance money and fire mutual aid money that the seller would receive due to fire, barring special circumstances, the buyer may exercise the right to claim all the fire insurance money and fire mutual aid money paid for the subject matter, and its scope is limited within the limit of the amount equivalent to the purchase price paid or agreed

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff entered into the contract of this case with the defendant on August 27, 2008, to take over 3,091,331 g of 1 km per 1,400 won. ② On December 5, 2008, the fire of this case occurred, and the freezing 120,633.4 g of all of which the defendant was in custody in the freezing warehouse. ③ At the time of the fire of this case, the object of the contract of this case was subscribed to the Agricultural Cooperative Fire Deductions. The defendant received 290,137,729 won as the fire of 120,63.4 g of the freezing 297, and the defendant received 295 g of 295 g of 295 g of 295 g of 39 g of 290,50 g of 29 g of 290 g of 29 g of 25 g of g of 29 g of g of 329 g of g of 1.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, so long as the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim the payment related to 120,633.4kg of the loaded freezing, its scope shall, barring any special circumstance, affect the entire fire mutual aid amount received by the Defendant, and otherwise, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff is limited to the amount equivalent to the purchase price paid to the Defendant under the sales contract

Nevertheless, the court below rejected all of the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff paid 1,400 won per 1kg as the purchase price to the freezing meat which was lost as above, and the scope of the claim is limited to the above purchase price. The court below ordered only 87,513,300 won (=62,509.5k x 1,400 won) to the land of this case, and the compensation amount of KRW 2,050 per 1kg for the four-way quantity was already paid. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of the claim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)