[1] Whether the seller of real estate can be deemed to have fully fulfilled his/her duty of transferring his/her right by merely giving a provisional registration to preserve the buyer's right to claim ownership transfer registration (negative)

[2] The meaning of "the date the bona fide purchaser becomes aware of the fact", which is the starting point of the exclusion period of the buyer's claim for reduction

[1] In a sales contract, a seller has a duty to transfer a right to a buyer which is the object of the sale, and in a sales contract for real estate, a seller has a duty to transfer ownership registration procedure as one of the duty to transfer ownership to a buyer. Therefore, a seller cannot be deemed to have fulfilled a seller’s duty to transfer ownership solely on the basis of provisional registration for preserving a right to claim ownership transfer registration of real estate sold to a buyer. Therefore, even if a seller has made a provisional registration against a buyer, if the seller had completed the registration of ownership transfer of a part of the real estate to a third party before the principal registration based on such provisional registration was made, and if the buyer cannot make a transfer registration of ownership of the transferred share to a third party by cancelling the provisional registration by himself/herself, the seller cannot be deemed to have fulfilled a duty to transfer the complete ownership of the buyer. Even if the buyer was negligent in the process of cancelling the provisional registration, such negligence by the buyer

[2] The buyer's right to claim price reduction based on the seller's warranty liability shall be exercised within one year from the date when the buyer becomes aware of the fact if the buyer is bona fide or within one year from the date when the contract was concluded in case of bad faith. The date when the buyer becomes aware of the fact here refers to the date when the seller becomes aware of the fact that part of the right belongs to another person, not from the

[1] Article 568 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [2] Article 573 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu17676 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 957) Supreme Court Decision 91Da27396 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong192, 485)

Ulsan Metropolitan City

Intervenor joining the Intervenor

Defendant (Attorney Park Sang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 95Na1149 delivered on February 15, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the court below's reasoning, it is difficult to find that the defendant's above-mentioned shares transfer registration cannot be cancelled due to the plaintiff's non-party's assertion that the above-mentioned shares transfer registration could not be cancelled due to the plaintiff's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party-1 and non-party 2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-6's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party-2's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party-2's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party ownership registration.

In addition, the plaintiff's argument in the grounds of appeal that the right to demand price reduction in this case cannot be exercised within the exclusion period of one year is a new argument that does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal as well as the right to demand price reduction based on the seller's warranty liability shall be exercised within one year from the date when the purchaser becomes aware of the fact in the case of bona fide faith, and within one year from the date when the contract was concluded in the case of bad faith (Article 573 of the Civil Code). The date when the purchaser becomes aware of the fact in this case is not simply the date when a part of the right belongs to another person but the seller becomes unable to acquire and transfer it (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da27396 delivered on December 10, 191, 89Da17676 delivered on March 27, 190, etc.). However, the plaintiff's ground of appeal that the plaintiff did not know that part of the part of the ownership of the forest which was the object at the time of the sale contract in this case was not transferred to the plaintiff 1390.15.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)