The case holding that the judgment of the court below which accepted the plaintiff's claim within the scope of the remaining amount based on the previous sales contract and the compensation for delay on the claim for the payment of the purchase price based on the previous sales contract was unlawful since the judgment of the court below

Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Choi Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Urban Development Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2006Na6103 Decided February 15, 2008

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Each ground of appeal by both the plaintiff and the defendant is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and found that the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant company on November 2, 2004, prepared on November 2, 2004, was prepared for the transfer to a third party (non-party 1 or non-party 2) in a comprehensive manner by the plaintiff et al. of the right to share in the site of this case and the right to complete the above ground, and thus, the plaintiff cannot claim payment of the purchase price based thereon. On May 2, 2005, the non-party 2 purchased the site of this case and the building of this case from the defendant company and did not pay KRW 150 million out of the purchase price. Since the substance of the sales contract is the plaintiff, the defendant company is the seller and the defendant company, the defendant company is obligated to pay the purchase price of 150 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff within the scope of the plaintiff's claim of this case.

However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept.

A court shall not render a judgment on the matters not requested by the parties (Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act).

However, according to the records, the Plaintiff consistently asserted that the agreement entered into between the Defendant Company and Nonparty 2 on May 2, 2005, on November 2, 2004, sought payment of the price since the Plaintiff sold the right to share in the instant site to the Defendant Company in KRW 200 million and did not receive the price.

Therefore, the above claim for the purchase price based on the sales contract of November 2, 2004 and the claim for the remainder of the purchase price based on the sales contract of May 2, 2005 are separate claims that differ in the subject matter of a lawsuit. As seen earlier, the judgment of the court below is unlawful and it has affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant as to this point are with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)