Where the original owner of any real estate which has been sold in succession and the registration of ownership transfer has been completed, and the final purchaser has won the lawsuit against the title holder for cancellation of the registration of transfer by invalidity of cause, the scope of restitution for which the last purchaser seeks to cancel the sale and purchase by the Civil Act Article 570 against the seller.

If the original owner of any real estate which has been sold in succession and has been registered for the transfer of ownership has won a final and conclusive judgment in the lawsuit to cancel the registration of transfer against the title holder due to the invalidation of cause, the last purchaser shall cancel the sale of such real estate by Article 570 of the Civil Act against the seller himself, and the reinstatement for which the registration of transfer has been sought shall be governed by Article 548

Articles 570 and 548 of the Civil Act

Lee Jong-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

The Republic of China and 1 other

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na865 delivered on September 13, 1973

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, which purchased the forest of this case from the defendants and completed the registration of ownership transfer thereof on August 3, 1967. However, this forest of this case was transferred under its own name by forging all documents related to the registration of this case, and then transferred the forest to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the transfer. However, the defendants sold the forest of this case to the plaintiffs in sequential order to the plaintiffs and made the registration of ownership transfer to each purchaser's name. However, the above stuff was merely the above registered titleholder on the ground that the registration of the non-party to the above non-party's name is null and void and void, and finally the above sale contract was cancelled with the complaint of this case, which became final and conclusive by delivery of the plaintiff to the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiffs's claim of this case was presumed to be due to the sale of this case's claim for damages for delay from the date of cancellation under Article 570 of the Civil Act, and the defendants' claim for damages for delay payment of this case can be dismissed.

2. According to the records, the Plaintiff sought payment of the above purchase price of KRW 1,512,00 and the amount of damages for delay from August 3, 1967 (the following day after the Defendant received the above payment and the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiffs) at the rate of five percent per annum (the Plaintiff’s preparatory documents as of March 10, 1972). It is clear that the purpose of this decision is to cancel the above sale contract and to seek the seller’s fulfillment of the seller’s duty to restore, in comparison with the former part of the reasoning of this decision.

According to Article 570 of the Civil Code, in a case where a right which has become an object of sale belongs to another person, the buyer may rescind the contract when the seller is unable to acquire such right and transfer it to the buyer. In such a case, the buyer's right of rescission is a kind of right of statutory rescission, and there is no special provision regarding the scope of duty of restoration arising from the effect of the exercise of the right, and it is reasonable to follow the provisions of Article 548 (2) of the Civil Code (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da1442 delivered on March 26, 1974). Thus, the decision rejecting part of the plaintiff's claim as seen above cannot be deemed to have been erroneous in the misapprehension of the above legal principle and in the case of party members, it cannot

3. In a case where the above judgment added an amount of 5% per annum to the purchase price from the following day after the delivery of the complaint due to the Plaintiff’s statement of delay as mentioned above, it is reasonable to hold that the Plaintiff’s claim seeking restitution was erroneous and did not exhaust any deliberation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal concerning the claim for interest portion is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)