The case holding that since the apartment sale contract for the purpose of a specific object is not a sale and purchase designated by quantity, it does not constitute unjust enrichment even though the actual area is larger than that indicated in the contract.

The apartment sale contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was concluded by specifying one unit of apartment with specific apartment units specified in 607 and 102 of apartment units. Thus, it is not a sale designated by quantity, but a sale for specific water, and even if the actual area of apartment units sold by the Defendants is somewhat larger than that indicated in the sales contract form due to the mistake of the snow company's sales guide car, it cannot be said that the Defendants obtained benefits without any legal cause.

Articles 574 and 741 of the Civil Act

Attorney Park Young-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Attorney Cho Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 90Na6955 delivered on October 18, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the apartment sale contract of this case concluded between the plaintiff and the defendants specified only one apartment unit with the specific apartment units specified in the 6th, 607 and 102 of the apartment units as stated in the judgment of the court below, since it is not the sale with the quantity designated, but the sale with the specific objects of water, which is not the sale with the snow company guidance car, and the actual area of the above apartment units sold by the defendants is somewhat larger than that indicated in the sales contract form, the defendants cannot obtain profits without any legal grounds.

The above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the sale and purchase of specific goods and unjust enrichment. The arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)