The amount of compensation for the impossibility of performance is equivalent to the market price at the time of impossibility of performance, and it is not equivalent to the market price at the time of termination.

The amount of the transfer payment due to the impossibility of performance is equivalent to the market price of the performance party, and the market price at the time of termination is not the market price.

Article 390 of the Civil Act, Article 546 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Review Plaintiff) 1 and six others

Defendant (Re-Defendant)

Busan District Court Decision 68Na424 delivered on March 13, 1970

All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

Of the costs of the appeal, the part of the appeal by the plaintiffs is assessed against the plaintiffs, and the part of the appeal by the defendant is assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s claim and change of cause stated at the second oral argument of the court below after remanding the real estate, the defendant (the defendant re-appellant) filed a claim for compensatory damages in lieu of the plaintiff's performance, since the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with the non-party 1 on the ground of sale and purchase on December 2, 1965 and failed to perform the obligation to transfer ownership to the non-party 1. Thus, the plaintiff is just in the court below's decision calculated at the real estate market price at the time of December 2, 1965, when the amount of compensation is impossible to perform. The plaintiff's argument is groundless on the premise that the market price at the time of cancellation of the sale contract at the same time due to the impossibility of performance, should be the amount of compensatory damages at the time of cancellation of the sale contract at the time of simultaneous cancellation. It is not appropriate in this case.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the market price of this real estate was gold 466,850 at the time of December 2, 1965 based on the appraiser non-party 2's appraisal result, and contrary thereto, the appraisal result in the appraiser non-party 2's appraisal result is not believed in light of the above evidence. According to the records, the above appraiser non-party 2's appraisal result shows that the plaintiff adopted the plaintiff's application for re-appraisal (gold 358,500 won) so that the plaintiff would be less than that of the appraiser Kim Jong-soo's appraisal (the plaintiff also invoked this) and therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss the ground that the plaintiff's application for re-appraisal is improper.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the defendant's right of representation as to the sale and purchase of the non-party by the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff that the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 were entitled to dispose of this real estate from the defendant and sold it to the plaintiff. In the case of the judgment, the non-party 4 did not request the defendant to sell this real estate and sold it to the plaintiff as the defendant's representative, and there is no fact that the non-party 1 sold it to the plaintiff as the plaintiff's representative, and it is obvious that the plaintiff testified that the non-party 4 testified that there was an obstacle to the plaintiff's marking on the house receipt, and therefore, if so, the non-party 4's testimony (Evidence) was admitted as evidence of rejection of the plaintiff's claim, and the non-party 4's testimony is not justified in the judgment of this case's non-party 4's counter-party 2's counter-party 4's counter-party 2's testimony.

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed. Of the costs of appeal by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, the costs of appeal by the plaintiffs are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)