The time for calculating the ordinary damages of the buyer due to the impossibility of performance by the seller of real estate.

(a) If the seller’s ordinary damage is caused by the impossibility of performance by the seller of the real estate, such damage;

It is the amount equivalent to the current real estate price.

(b)the temporary market price of the real estate until the purchase is not able to be performed.

(1) A purchaser may obtain the benefit of his or her or her or her return price in a reliable manner.

The seller could have predicted or predicted the special circumstances in which the seller had foreseen;

It is the return price.

Article 393 of the Civil Act, Article 571 of the Civil Act

Park Labor Day;

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3047 delivered on May 3, 1968

All appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal from among the costs of appeal is assessed against the plaintiff's and the defendant's appeal.

First of all, we examine the plaintiff's grounds of appeal (the first and second points).

According to the original judgment, the defendant sold the real estate in its holding, which belongs to the plaintiff on July 25, 1956, and received the full payment of the purchase price until July 12, 1960, and immediately thereafter sold the real estate to the non-party, the non-party on July 31, 1960, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale and purchase as of November 14 of that year, thereby making it impossible for the plaintiff to perform the obligation of the registration of ownership transfer due to the above sale and purchase of the real estate, and then, the plaintiff's ordinary damages due to the non-performance of the obligation to perform the obligation was equivalent to the market price of the real estate at the time of the impossibility of performance, and the special damages were due to the non-performance of the obligation to obtain the profit due to the price due to the above sale and purchase from the non-performance of the real estate at the time of the above 10th judgment was not established, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the non-performance of the above 16th judgment.

The following grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court below was just because the plaintiff's purchase and sale contract for the real estate in its holding was impossible due to the plaintiff's cause attributable to the defendant after payment of the plaintiff's price, and the defendant's claim for the plaintiff's main lawsuit on the ground of impossibility of performance was made, and the defendant was obligated to compensate for ordinary damages as stated in its reasoning. The theory of lawsuit was notified by the defendant on February 23, 1966 that the defendant unilaterally cancelled the above sale and sale on the ground of the plaintiff's impossibility of performance due to his own cause attributable to the plaintiff on February 23, 1966. Thus, the sale and sale became retroactively null and void. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the sale is null and void, which is legally rejected by the judgment of the court below (the above judgment of the court below ruled that the cancellation of the sale and sale was not a ground for rejection of the plaintiff's claim on the ground of impossibility of performance already occurred). However, it cannot be accepted.

Therefore, according to the consistent opinion of all participating judges.

It is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong and Ma-dong Na-Gyeong