The buyer's failure to execute the sale contract of another person's right and whether the seller's warranty liability exists.

In the case of the purchase and sale of another person's right, the seller is not liable for the warranty of Article 569 of the Civil Code if it is due to the cause attributable to the buyer.

Article 569 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 78Na825 delivered on March 9, 1979

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal arising from the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Court.

1. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s appeal.

The plaintiff filed a legitimate appeal, but did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the prescribed period, and the petition of appeal does not contain any information in the grounds for appeal.

2. Next, we examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below determined to the effect that the plaintiff purchased the house of this case constructed on the building site of this case 1,50,00 won and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the seller's request of the above deceased non-party 1, the debtor, and the above non-party 1's heir's duty to obtain the above certificate of ownership transfer without any agreement between the above deceased non-party 1 and the debtor, and the deceased non-party 1, the obligee's obligee's duty to obtain the above certificate of ownership transfer due to non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party 2's right to obtain the above certificate of ownership transfer.

However, if the facts are as above, the sale of the instant house by the deceased non-party 1 to the plaintiff is the sale of the house by the non-party 2, who is a third party, and this is the so-called "sale of another person's right" under Article 569 of the Civil Code. If the seller becomes unable to perform due to any reason before transferring another person's right to the buyer, the seller is unable to perform the duty of transfer. However, if the buyer is responsible for the defect, i.e., the defect, if the cause is not attributable to the buyer, the buyer shall be exempted from his own cause, and only the fact that the performance was impossible cannot be subject to the warranty against the seller.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff, the buyer of the instant house, neglected the registration of transfer despite having received all the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership from the deceased non-party 1, who was the seller, and transferred it to another person. As such, the Plaintiff’s failure to receive the transfer of ownership results in a compulsory auction and thus, the Plaintiff, the buyer, should be deemed to be the Plaintiff, the buyer, who was the buyer. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for the nonperformance of ownership against the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the inheritee, the buyer of the instant house.

However, the court below, solely based on its stated reasoning, held that the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the inheritee of the defendants, is responsible for failing to perform the duty to transfer ownership to the plaintiff as to the instant house, and accepted the plaintiff's claim for damages of this case, it cannot be deemed that the sale of another person's right, which affected the seller's warranty liability, does not constitute a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the seller's warranty liability, and it is reasonable to discuss this issue. The judgment of the court below as to this part is reversed and should be reversed.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s appeal is without merit. The costs of appeal arising from the Plaintiff’s appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s appeal is with merit. Therefore, the part against the Defendant among the judgment below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice)