Whether or not to demand the return of interest even in the case of rescission under the Civil Act Article 570

Article 570 of the Civil Code provides that the right of rescission by the Civil Code does not constitute a cause of non-performance, and even if there is no negligence on the part of the seller, a kind of right of statutory rescission is granted to the buyer, so there is no special limitation on the effect of statutory rescission, so even if there is no reason to exclude the general provision on statutory cancellation, the provision on the return of interest under Article 549 of the Civil

Articles 548 and 570 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap6007) in the first instance trial

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The Defendants pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,008,00 per annum from November 2, 1967 to the full payment day. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On August 14, 1967, the defendant et al. did not own the title of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 90 to 4 non-party 1, the sales contract was calculated as KRW 2,800 per annum between the deceased non-party 1 and received the price. The non-party 1 died on September 16, 1969 and became co-inheritors (so, the plaintiff is reduced only to hereinafter). However, the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff of the above real estate and the lawsuit claiming the cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the non-party 2 on September 26, 1972 against the above non-party 2 is final and conclusive in favor of the above non-party, so the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above sales contract should not be executed with the intention of the above Chapter 570, and the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above sale contract should be 106,000 won per annum of the above legal interest rate as to the above real estate, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership should be 20160.

In this regard, the Defendants, who are the sellers of the above real estate, are obligated to pay the interest at a rate of five percent per annum from November 2, 1967 to the date of full payment, which does not clearly argue that the Defendants are after the date of receipt under Article 548 of the Civil Act, as restitution due to the cancellation of the above sales contract.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this case is reasonable, and therefore, it will be accepted. Thus, the original judgment is just in its conclusion and the defendant's appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han Man-Sung (Presiding Judge)