Where a sales contract is concluded with the knowledge that the excess area to be collected at the time of replotting disposition exceeds the right area for the previous land in the sale of the land scheduled for replotting, the obligation to pay the liquidation money shall accrue.

If the parties concerned have concluded a sales contract with the knowledge that the liquidation amount is to be collected at the time of the replotting disposition in excess of the area of the right to the previous land, barring special circumstances, the parties to the sales contract shall be deemed to have determined the settlement amount in consideration of the liquidation amount related to the excessive area as above. Therefore, the settlement amount shall be borne by the purchaser. In the sales contract, it is reasonable to interpret that the special agreement that "if the excess amount occurs later, the settlement amount shall be calculated at the time of increase or decrease," not by the seller, but by the excessive number, if there is an increase or decrease in the excess amount already planned.

Article 568 of the Civil Act, Articles 52, 57, 62, and 68 of the Land Division and Rearrangement Projects Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Madrece

Oral species

Incheon District Court Decision 90Na1328 delivered on October 26, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the above 200 square meters of the remaining 3 meters of the remaining 4.0 square meters of the size of the 36.0 square meters of the remaining 4.0 square meters of the remaining 16.0 square meters of the size of the 36.0 square meters of the above land as 16.0 square meters of the size of the land as 16.4 square meters of the previous 4.02 square meters of the size of the land as 16.02 square meters of the size of the land as 16.4 meters of the size of the land as 16.0 square meters of the remaining 4.0 square meters of the size of the land as 16.0 square meters of the size of the land as 16.0 square meters of the previous 4.0 square meters of the size of the land as 16.0 square meters of the size of the land as 26.02 square meters of the size of the land as 14.0.0

2. However, in the event that a party to a transaction uses the reserved land for sale itself as the object of sale, if the sales contract was concluded with the knowledge that the reserved land area for replotting exceeds the pre-sale area for the pre-sale land and that the liquidation amount is to be collected at the time of replotting disposition, barring special circumstances, the party to the transaction shall be deemed

However, according to the facts of the decision of the court below, the right area of the previous land was already publicly announced and the excessive area was scheduled to be 46.8 square meters at the time of designating the land as the land as the land as the land as the land as the substitution for replotting. In addition, the defendant asserted that at the time of the sales contract with the plaintiff that the above excessive area was presented to the plaintiff, and the second instance witness testimony is supported by the testimony of the second instance witness. Thus, unless special circumstances are acknowledged, the plaintiff and the defendant should have determined the purchase price by considering the liquidation relation of the above excessive area in selling the land as the land as the land as the substitution for replotting.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the special agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that "the remaining calculation is made upon the increase or decrease of the price of the land scheduled for substitution" in the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant does not purport to assume that the seller bears the liquidation amount in the event of the excessive balance, such as the time of original adjudication, but to increase or decrease in the excessive balance already planned. If there is an increase or decrease in the excessive balance, it is reasonable to interpret that the previous land on the land scheduled for substitution was not partitioned at

Therefore, even though the court below should have interpreted the above facts and evidence relations more closely, it has committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by making the interpretation of the sales contract through an incomplete hearing. Therefore, there is a good reason to discuss this issue.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)