2014Da28886 Return of the purchase price

A person shall be appointed.

1. The term "biopia" corporation

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Na3687 Decided April 17, 2014

January 29, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

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

1. According to Articles 581(1) and (2), 580(1), and 575(1) of the Civil Act, where the subject matter of the sale was designated as a kind, and thereafter there is any defect in the specified subject matter, the buyer may rescind the contract when the objective of the contract is not achieved due to the defect, and if the defect does not reach the extent that the objective of the contract cannot be achieved due to the defect, the buyer may claim damages, and the buyer shall also have the right to claim damages against the defective object instead of the rescission of the contract or the claim for damages (hereinafter referred to as the “claim for Full Goods”).

Here, the failure to achieve the purpose of the contract due to the defect in the object refers to cases where it is deemed justifiable to exercise the right to cancel the contract by requiring a long period of time even if the defect is impossible or possible (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da10252, Jun. 10, 2010).

Meanwhile, the provisions on warranty liability under the Civil Act were prepared on the basis of the principle of fairness, which is the guiding ideology of the Civil Act, in order to maintain a provisional relationship between the payment and the consideration for the purchase and sale of the object of purchase and the bilateral contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da23920, Jun. 30, 1995). In a case where the buyer recognizes the buyer’s right to claim the full payment of the object in the type of sale and purchase without limiting the buyer’s right to claim the full payment, it would result in the seller’s excessive disadvantage or unjust loss, thereby destroying the contractual purpose. Therefore, if the buyer bears the duty of payment of the object without any defect, it would be unreasonable to restrict the buyer’s exercise of the right to claim the full payment of the object, such as the case where the defect of the object of sale and purchase is insignificant and the performance of the duty of payment of the object without any defect goes against the principle of fairness. In addition, whether to restrict the buyer’s right to claim the full payment of the object should be determined specifically in light of social norms.

In addition, the court determines whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of the ideology of social justice and equity with free evaluation of evidence taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The judgment of the court below did not go beyond the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence, thereby binding on the court of final appeal (Article 432 of the same Act)

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that (1) in order for the Plaintiff to cancel the instant sales contract, the defect of the instant automobile constitutes a case where it is impossible for the Plaintiff to achieve the purpose of the instant sales contract due to the defect; (2) the defect of the instant automobile is deemed to have a serious defect that directly affects the operation of the instant automobile; (3) the cost of repairing the instant automobile; (4) the cost of repairing the entire value of the instant automobile; and (4) the time and ease of repairing the instant automobile, barring any other special circumstances, the defect of the instant automobile constitutes a relatively easily cured defect due to the replacement of the automatic transmission period by free repair; (4) it is insufficient to deem that the defect of the instant automobile causes trouble in the achievement of the purpose of the instant sales contract; and (5) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently; (2) the Plaintiff’s primary claim for restitution of the instant automobile due to the cancellation of the instant sales contract, and (3) the Plaintiff’s exercise of its right to demand for replacement or replacement of the entire automobile without compensation, to the Plaintiff’s reasonable extent that it could affect the instant defect.

3. The part of the ground of appeal disputing the lower court’s fact-finding is nothing more than an error in the determination of the selection and value of evidence belonging to the free evaluation evidence of the lower court. In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the cancellation of a sales contract based on the warranty liability and the right to claim for full payment, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Go Young-young