(a) Where a real estate was purchased and then sold again to a third party without completing the registration of ownership transfer, it shall not be deemed to be "sale of another's right" as referred to in this Article;

B. A seller of real estate has a duty to compensate for the buyer’s damages incurred as long as he asserts that the buyer’s failure to perform the obligation to transfer ownership to the buyer is not caused by his own cause and fails to prove that such failure was caused by his own cause.

A. The seller of real estate has a duty to compensate the buyer for the damages incurred by the buyer, provided that the buyer’s failure to perform the obligation to perform the procedure for ownership transfer registration against the buyer is not caused by his own cause, and that the buyer did not prove it.

(b) Where a real estate has been purchased and then sold again to a third party without completing the registration of ownership transfer, it shall not be deemed as “sale of another’s right” as referred to in this Article.

Article 569 of the Civil Act, Article 390 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Defendant 1 and five others

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na199 delivered on April 19, 1972

We reverse the original judgment.

This case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney

The court below pointed out that there was no dispute between the Defendants. In other words, the Defendants were co-inheritors of the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased on August 3, 1967), and the Defendants were co-property inheritors of the deceased non-party 2 (the deceased on January 3, 1968), and the inheritee non-party 2 purchased the above 883 issue at the original time of judgment as non-party 3, but sold 214,00 won to the non-party 1 who was the deceased on December 8, 1964, and the above non-party 1 was also the first owner of the above real estate without the procedure of the transfer registration, and the above non-party 3 did not pay the above land to the non-party 4, but did not pay the debts to the non-party 1, who was the seller of the above real estate and the non-party 1, who was not liable for the transfer registration of the ownership of the above real estate. Accordingly, the court below asserted that the above Defendants were not liable for damages to the purchaser of the above real estate.

However, as in this case, in case where the deceased non-party 2 purchased the above real estate from the non-party 3 who was the owner, but it was sold to the deceased non-party 1 without the transfer registration of ownership, the seller's non-party 2, as well as the seller's right to dispose of the above real estate legally, so it cannot be interpreted that the sale of another person's right constitutes "the sale of another person's right" under Article 569 of the Civil Code. Thus, it is improper to interpret it as a sale of another person's right in spite of the fact that the seller is not obligated to give the buyer a transfer registration of ownership in his name, and if the loss occurred to the buyer due to the non-performance of such duty, the seller who did not assert and prove that the impossibility of performance of such duty was not caused by his own cause shall be interpreted as the seller's duty of compensation, but the court below shall interpret the sale contract as the sale of other person's right, and shall establish the legal principles as to the seller's duty of compensation for the reason of appeal.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)