(a) The case recognizing that the contract was completely rescinded, if a part of the contract was impossible;

(b) Calculation of compensatory damages due to partial nonperformance of a contract;

(c) Whether the provisions on the seller's liability for warranty against defects apply mutatis mutandis to a sales contract;

(a) A case where the contract was partially impossible, and thus the contract was completely rescinded, deeming that the purpose of the contract was not achieved;

(b) Where the whole contract is cancelled because a part of the contract is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract, such amount of compensatory damages shall be determined on the basis of the market price of the whole object at the time when the impossibility of performance becomes final and conclusive;

(c) The provisions concerning the seller's warranty against defects shall also apply mutatis mutandis to other commercial contracts unless the nature of the contract does not permit it.

(b)Article 546, Section 572(b) of the Civil Code; Article 393(c) of the Civil Code;

B. Supreme Court Decision 72Da2207 delivered on March 13, 1973, 80Da117 delivered on March 11, 1980, 80Da3122 delivered on July 7, 1981

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1779 delivered on November 13, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was not aware that the above part of the building was not owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was not owned by the non-party 97.3.11, and the non-party 2 purchased the ownership transfer registration again on the ground that the non-party 1 was not owned by the non-party 4, and the non-party 8 was not owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were purchased by the non-party 3. The non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were not owned by the non-party 9. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were dismissed on the ground that the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 had no ownership transfer registration for the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 had no ownership transfer registration for the non-party 4. The decision of the court below against the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 was dismissed on the ground that the non-party 1 had no ownership transfer registration for the non-party 1 and the plaintiff 2.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

If the contract is terminated due to the impossibility of partial performance of the contract, the full amount of compensation shall be determined on the basis of the entire market price of the object at the time when the performance of the contract becomes final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da3122, July 7, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 72Da2207, March 13, 1973; Supreme Court Decision 72Da2207, March 13, 197), and the provisions on the seller's warranty liability applies mutatis mutandis to other compensatory contract unless the nature of the contract does not permit it. Thus, in the case of cancellation of the contract due to defects in the object of payment in kind, the plaintiff's claim for the delivery of the land against the above non-party 2 becomes final and conclusive as the defendant's obligation to deliver the land is not possible, and the decision of the court below that calculated the amount of compensation on the basis of the market price of the real estate at the time of October 10, 1984, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to this point.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)