In a case where the buyer of a real estate has, without the consent of the seller, imposed the excessive restriction on the investment of real estate on the seller by using the seal of the seller in the name of the seller, changing the land category, stating the sale date at his discretion, and registering

Although the purchaser of a real estate had completed the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the land category at the time of sale and purchase according to the sale contract, if the purchaser applied for the conversion of dry field to a site by forging or using the seal of the seller without the consent of the seller, and then completed the registration of ownership transfer after voluntarily recording the sale date of the sale certificate, and the seller made the registration of ownership transfer by voluntarily recording the sale date of the sale, and thereby, the buyer was liable to compensate for the difference to the seller, if he did not pay the amount higher than the amount of the real estate speculation suppression tax on dry field, which

Yung-Jung, Attorney Kim Yong-hwan, Counsel for defendant

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na2030 decided Feb. 20, 1975

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by Defendant Attorney;

According to the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff sold 200 square meters (the land cadastre and current state at that time were dry field) to the defendant on December 27, 1969, 200 won and 200 square meters of the above land as 40 square meters and 160 square meters upon the defendant's request on February 17, 1970, and received all of the documents, such as a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of sale necessary for the registration of ownership transfer, and the remaining amount of the remaining amount. The defendant's husband's husband did not request the plaintiff 2 to convert the land category of the above land into the land site without the plaintiff's consent of 36 years and changed the land category of 40 square meters, 40 square meters from that time, 160 square meters from that time, 39 years of sale and purchase of the above land into the above land, and 97 years of sale and purchase of the above land to the plaintiff at that time, 97 million won of the above land category at that time.

The decision on the ground of appeal No. 3 is that the plaintiff's actual selling date of this case's land is before its land category is changed, and if the plaintiff asserts that the cancellation of the disposition imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax, it shall be sufficient for the defendant to take the responsibility, and it is unfair to impose the defendant more responsibility because the plaintiff did not take such a measure. The court below's decision that the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing on the plaintiff's above assertion is that the sale date is different from that of the defendant's illegal land category change, and the damage suffered by the plaintiff has a considerable causal relationship between the above tort and the defendant's illegal land category change. And according to the records, the plaintiff requested the defendant's cooperation in order to seek the cancellation of the disposition imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing the tax imposing.

As stated in the reasoning of the judgment on the ground of appeal No. 4 above, if the plaintiff received a notice of tax payment heavier than the initially anticipated real estate speculation control tax due to the defendant's illegal acts, and requested cooperation necessary for seeking the cancellation of the disposition, but rejected, and it was inevitable to pay the total amount of tax within the payment period, and thus, the plaintiff was imposed penalty tax due to the plaintiff's failure to pay the total amount of tax within the payment period, the increased damages are also the defendant in a relation corresponding to the defendant's illegal acts. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in interpreting the law on the calculation of damages, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal interpretation on the calculation of damages, and the appeal raised

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)